Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 August 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 59; Sully J at 1; Hidden J at 60 DECISION : Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 CASES CITED : Reg v Cross [2002] NSWCCA 172 Reg v Pitt [2001] NSWCCA 125 Reg v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128 PARTIES : Regina Anissa Maude Stanley FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60142/03 COUNSEL : D. Arnott - Crown C. Craigie SC - Appellant SOLICITORS : S. E. O'Connor - Crown D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 1/61/0063 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Woods DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60142/03

SPIGELMAN CJ SULLY J HIDDEN J

19 August 2003 REGINA v ANISSA MAUDE STANLEY Judgment 1 SULLY J: This is an application by Anissa Maude Stanley for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon her in the District Court at Dubbo on 24 October 2002. 2 On 22 October 2002 the applicant was arraigned upon an indictment charging that on 9 February 2002, and at a time when she was in company with one Bianca Hammond and one S.P, she assaulted one Brian Kerrigan with intent to rob him. (This co-accused was a juvenile. She will be referred to herein only by her initials.) Such an offence contravenes section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. The sentence ultimately passed upon the applicant was one of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. 3 The material facts can be taken as follows from the remarks on sentence: "The facts are that the prisoner accosted the victim in Macquarie Street, Dubbo at about 1.30 p.m. on 9 February. The victim knew the prisoner through them both residing at Wellington. The prisoner persuaded the victim that she could get him some beer at cheap rates, and the victim withdrew some cash from an ATM. Meanwhile the prisoner had made some communication with the two other offenders who had remained concealed. All of this was observed by police who were suspicious about the behaviour. The prisoner then persuaded the victim to walk away from the shopping area and the two other offenders were following not far behind. The other offenders then joined up with the prisoner and the victim, and then as they walked along the three girls grabbed the victim and threw him to the ground and tried to get his wallet from him. The police came upon the scene and apprehended the girls. The victim suffered some abrasions." 4 The following grounds were advanced in support of the application, and in support also of the substantive appeal, should leave to appeal be granted: "1. The learned sentencing judge erred in law in applying the guideline judgment constituted by R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, there being no authority for the application of the guideline to the offence of assault with intent to rob whilst in company. 2. The factors of disadvantage arising in the context of the applicant's Aboriginal background were inadequately reflected in the sentencing outcome. 3. The factor of the applicant's youth was inadequately reflected in the sentencing outcome. 4. The sentence imposed was so disproportionate to the sentence imposed upon a juvenile co-offender, as to give rise to a reasonable sense of grievance in the applicant. 5. The characterisation of the applicant as a 'ring-leader' was a finding of fact not reasonably open upon the evidence. 6. The finding of special circumstances was not adequately reflected in the sentencing outcome. 7. The sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances." 5 It is convenient to deal seriatim with those grounds.