Regina v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 485

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 485 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60425/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 21/10/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 December 2002

PARTIES : Crown Jennifer Eleja Aroha Anderson JUDGMENT OF : Heydon JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hidden J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/21/0096 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Tupman DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr P Ingram - Applicant Crown Mr A P Cook - Respondent SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor - Applicant Crown DJ Humphreys - Respondent CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - Crown appeal - sentences inadequate in their totality - creditable behaviour by respondent in prison since sentence relevant to re-sentence - discretion not to interfere. LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 Crimes Act, 1900 CASES CITED: R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at paras 162.-5 R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198 DECISION : Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60425/02

HEYDON JA HULME J HIDDEN J

Monday, 16 December, 2002 REGINA v Jennifer Eleja Aroha ANDERSON Judgment 1 HEYDON JA: But for the incident described in the last three paragraphs of Hidden J's reasons for judgment, the success of this Crown appeal would have been inevitable. However, that spontaneous incident, reflecting as it does much credit on the respondent as a human being, is an extremely compelling indication that the respondent has begun a process of rehabilitation and has significant prospects of rehabilitation which an increased sentence might damage. Good behaviour in the prisons of this State is something which badly needs to be encouraged, and taking the incident into account in the manner proposed by Hidden J may encourage it. For that reason I agree with the order proposed by Hidden J. 2 HULME J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Heydon JA and with the order proposed by Hidden J. 3 HIDDEN J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act, against sentences passed upon the respondent after she pleaded guilty in the District Court to the following charges: · Aggravated kidnapping (s 86(2) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment); · robbery in company (s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, also carrying a maximum of twenty years); · two charges of (deemed) larceny of a motor vehicle (ss 154A/117 of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum of five years). 4 On the kidnapping charge, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. On the charge of robbery in company she was sentenced to a fixed term of twelve months, and on each of the motor vehicle charges to a fixed term of six months. All sentences were to date from 17 February 2002, the date of her arrest. The overall effective sentence, then, was imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months.