Citation: Jamie Joseph Cooper v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 428
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 12 December 2005
Judge(s): Hodgson JA, McClellan CJ at CL, Barr J
Background
The appellant was a 26-year-old man who, in October 2002 at Dubbo, broke into a neighbouring house together with his 15-year-old cousin and stole five firearms from safes. The stolen weapons included two pistols and three revolvers. After the break-in, the rifles left behind at a third address were recovered by police, but the five handguns were never found.
The appellant told police he acted after learning that the householder had threatened to shoot his cousin, and that his intention was to destroy the weapons. The sentencing judge preferred this account over the later version the appellant gave in evidence, in which he claimed to have simply followed his cousin on the spur of the moment without knowing firearms were inside.
The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three counts: break and enter with stealing in aggravating circumstances, unauthorised possession of five firearms, and disposing of those same firearms. On 23 September 2004, Norrish QC DCJ imposed an effective sentence of three years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The appellant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, having regard to the appellant's personal circumstances, criminal history, and the utilitarian value of his guilty pleas.
- Whether statistical sentencing data for comparable offences supported a conclusion that the sentences were outside the range of a sound sentencing discretion.
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. All three judges agreed that the sentences were well within the sentencing judge's proper discretion and that no specific error in the sentencing exercise had been identified.
Barr J, with whom the other judges agreed, observed that the five handguns had never been recovered and remained at large in the community, enabling potential unlawful use. His Honour noted this consequence was properly reflected in the sentence for the first count, even though the sentencing judge had not found that the appellant specifically intended this outcome.
On the question of statistical comparisons, Barr J noted that the Court had repeatedly cautioned against direct reliance on sentencing statistics when assessing any particular result. He found the statistics gave no clear support to either party. Taking the total criminality of the three concurrent sentences into account, the overall sentences were, in his Honour's view, unremarkable for offences of this seriousness.
Hodgson JA added that statistics would likely have included single-offence cases, making direct comparison with a concurrent multi-offence sentence inappropriate. He also noted that the extremely serious consequences of the offending, particularly the unrecovered handguns, could legitimately be taken into account in sentencing, especially where the appellant offered no account of any steps taken to prevent those consequences.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that manifest excess cannot be inferred from sentence length alone; a specific error in the sentencing exercise must be identified.
- Sentencing statistics warrant caution when applied to multi-offence cases involving concurrent sentences, because the statistics are likely to include single-offence matters that are not directly comparable.
- Where stolen firearms remain unrecovered and at large in the community, the serious potential consequences of that outcome can properly be reflected in the sentence, even absent a finding that the offender specifically intended those consequences.
- A 10 per cent discount for the utilitarian value of guilty pleas does not, of itself, render a sentence excessive where the overall criminality of the offending is substantial.
- The Court affirmed that an extended supervision period on parole was available and appropriate where the offender had significant drug dependency and psychological issues requiring counselling and had never previously been subject to parole.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No specific legislation or cases were cited in the text of the judgment as provided. The offences dealt with relate to provisions concerning break and enter with aggravated circumstances, unauthorised possession of firearms, and disposal of stolen firearms under NSW law.