Local Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Police v Dixon [2007] NSWLC 21 JURISDICTION: Criminal PARTIES: Police
Leonard James DixonFILE NUMBER: PLACE OF HEARING: Moree Local Court DATE OF DECISION:
07/02/2007MAGISTRATE: Magistrate G Lerve CATCHWORDS: Sentence – multiple offences of Break Enter and Steal – partial cumulation – whether vulnerable victims – jurisdictional limit in Local Court – drug addiction by offender – Fernando Principles - Matters on Form 1 – Statistics LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900 s. 112(1)
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act, 1999 ss 3A, 5 and 21ACASES CITED: Bolter [2002] NSWCCA 435
De Simoni v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR
Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
Jones unrep. NSWCCA 30.6.1994
Martin [2007] NSWCCA 34
Nguyen [2007] NSWCCA 14
Ryan (2003) 141 A Crim R 403
Simpson & Newman (2004) A Crim R. 316
Stricke [2007] NSWCCA 179
Wallace [2007] NSWCCA 63
Watts [2007] NSWCCA 153REPRESENTATION: Ms Owens Solicitor for the Office of the DPP
Ms K White, Solicitor for and with offenderORDERS:
Remarks on Sentence
1. The offences contained with the papers on H54731302 occurred on or about 28 November 2006. The offender first appeared before the Court on 28 November 2006. Brief orders were made. The matter was before the court on a further five occasions. A plea of guilty was entered to the three mattes set out above on 17 April 2007, and the matter listed for sentence on 19 June 2007. Clearly enough, the plea was entered following plea negotiations between the parties. The offence within 29638240 was committed on 20 January 2007 to which a plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity. I note that in respect of the earlier offences the offender was originally facing more serious charges. In the agreed facts in respect of both sets of matters the Crown concedes that the offender pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, and accordingly, is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.
2. I am also asked to take into account three further offences (Possession of a Prohibited Substance; Goods in Custody and Possession of Housebreaking implements). I will take these matters on the Forms 1 into account when passing sentence in respect of the charge of Break Enter and Steal on H54731302.
Facts
3. I will initially deal with the matters of 28 November 2006. The matter proceeded by way of agreed facts, which I will for the sake of convenience insert in full within these remarks.
4. Sequence 8, i.e., the offence of break enter and steal occurred first in time. At about 10.45 pm on Monday 27 November 2007, Ronald Hardy, a care staff employee of the Namoi Valley Aged Care Complex had just escorted the last of the evening staff from the premises. As he returned he noticed a bike leaning against the main building. He moved it from its position.
5. A short time later he received…
Continue reading Police v Dixon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Dixon [2007] NSWLC 21
- Case
- [2007] NSWLC 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles outlined in the Fernando decision, which provides guidance on sentencing for multiple offences. It also considered the relevant statistics and the fact that Dixon had a drug addiction. The court acknowledged the Crown's concession that Dixon had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, entitling him to a 25% discount on the utilitarian value of his plea. After evaluating these factors, the court determined the appropriate sentence, balancing the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of society.
In delivering its decision, the court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the offender's personal background and the impact of the offences on the victims. The court found that while the offences were serious, the offender's early guilty plea and his drug addiction warranted a degree of leniency. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the principles of justice and proportionality, taking into account the nature of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. The court's decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific factors relevant to Dixon's case, ensuring a fair and just outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
Remarks on Sentence 1. The offences contained with the papers on H54731302 occurred on or about 28 November 2006. The offender first appeared before the Court on 28 November 2006. Brief orders were made. The matter was before the court on a further five occasions. A plea of guilty was entered to the three mattes set out above on 17 April 2007, and the matter listed for sentence on 19 June 2007. Clearly enough, the plea was entered following plea negotiations between the parties. The offence within 29638240 was committed on 20 January 2007 to which a plea of guilty was entered at the earliest opportunity. I note that in respect of the earlier offences the offender was originally facing more serious charges. In the agreed facts in respect of both sets of matters the Crown concedes that the offender pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, and accordingly, is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.