NEWBURN Ronald Neville v R [2008] NSWCCA 57

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: NEWBURN Ronald Neville v R [2008] NSWCCA 57

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hulme J at 2; Mathews AJ at 6

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Plea of Guilty involving numerous offences - Lengthy criminal record - Sentences not excessive - No error in sentencing judge's approach

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED : R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603

PARTIES: Ronald Neville Newburn Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2904

COUNSEL: T Gartleman (Applicant) P Ingram (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/31/0385

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 April 2007

- 1 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2007/2904

McCLELLAN CJ AT CL HULME J MATHEWS AJ

Friday, 14 March 2008 Ronald Neville NEWBURN v R Judgment 1 McCLELLAN CJ AT CL: I agree with Mathews AJ. 2 HULME J: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the Reasons for Judgment of Matthews AJ and the orders proposed by her Honour. I agree with her Honour's Reasons and proposed orders. I would, however, add the following. 3 The Applicant is someone who has undoubtedly had a difficult beginning in life. Such a situation is one fairly entitled to recognition by the Courts. However, he has had far more recognition of this than he could reasonably expect. On no less than three occasions, he had been placed on probation. On no less than four, he has been placed on a bond. On no less than five occasions he has been sentenced to the rising of the Court and this for fifteen separate offences a number of which from their description would by no means seem insignificant. 4 The community cannot reasonably be expected to accept being preyed upon by the Applicant in the way it has for the last 7 years. Persons are entitled not to be assaulted, not to have their homes broken into, not to have their motor vehicles stolen or as occurred in one of the offences with which this Court is presently concerned, destroyed at the Applicant's whim. 5 One of the purposes of sentencing - see Veen v R [No.2] – (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465 at 476 – is the protection of society. That and the Applicant's recidivism argue strongly for penalties well in excess of those the subject of his appeal. Perhaps it is only harsh punishments which will teach him. 6 MATHEWS AJ: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed by Judge Coolahan at the Newcastle District Court on 3 April 2007. Three charges had been laid against the applicant in the Newcastle Local Court. He pleaded guilty to each of them and was committed for sentence. The charges were as follows: 1. Maliciously damaging property by fire pursuant to s 195(b) Crimes Act 1900 ("the Act"), committed on 17 March 2006.