Legal Research
Cases
Police v JS

Police v JS

Case [2006] NSWLC 43 21 November 2006

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Breach of Conditional Liberty

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police v JS [2006] NSWLC 43

JURISDICTION: Children's Court

PARTIES: Police
JS

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Moree Local Court

DATE OF DECISION:
11/21/2006

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate G Lerve

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – juvenile offenders – multiple offending – late guilty plea – breach of conditional liberty – Aggravated Break, Enter and commit serious indictable offence (malicious damage by fire) – substantial damage – threaten witness – cumulation of sentence for public justice offences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R –v- AN [2005] NSWCCA 227
R –v- Carberry & Weldon (2002) 136 A Crim R 55
R-v- Carr (2002) 135 A Crim R 171
R –v- D’amico [2006] NSWCCA 316
R –v- Dibb [2003] NSWCCA 117
R –v- Elyard [2006] NSWCCA 43
R –v- Harrigan [2005] NSWCCA 449
R –v- Higgins [2006] NSWCCA 326
R –v- Jones unrep. NSWCCA 30.6.1994.
R –v- Leonard & Fail [2006] NSWCCA 345
R –v- LNT [2005] NSWCCA 307
R –v- MA [2004] NSWCCA 92
R –v- Marinellis [2006] NSWCCA 307
R –v- MSS [2005] NSWCCA 227
R –v- Pearce (1998) 103 A Crim R 372
R –v- Pham & Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 135
R –v- Ponfield & Ors. (1999) 48 NSWLR 435
R –v- Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 723
R –v- Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R –v- WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447

REPRESENTATION: Sgt. M. Westman
Mr. B. Hoffman

ORDERS:

Remarks on Sentence

The Young Person appears for sentence in respect of the following matters:

1. That (he) between 15 July 2006 and 17 July 2006, at Moree in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the shop owned by BB and leased by DS and TG, and then in the said building did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, malicious damage by fire, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that he was in company with another person; and

2. That (he) between 15 July 2006 and 17 July 2006 at Moree in the State of New South Wales did attempt to steal a motor vehicle, namely a 2006 Holden Crewman utility, the property of Moree Holden; and

3. That (he) on 17 July 2006 at Moree in the State of New South Wales did break and enter the store of New South Wales T.A.F.E. situate on Newell Highway, and while in the said store did steal a Yamaha Quadbike, the property of the said New South Wales T.A.F.E.; and

4. That (he) on or about 20 July 2006 at Moree in the State of New South Wales did threaten to cause injury to BC on account of a thing lawfully done by BC as a witness in judicial proceedings.

In respect of the charges of Aggravated Break and Enter and Attempt Steal Motor Vehicle offences he was charged on 25 July 2006. On 26 July 2006 he had his initial appearance before the Court on which occasion pleas of not guilty were entered. The usual brief orders were made. The pleas…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v JS

Details

AGLC: Police v JS [2006] NSWLC 43
Case: [2006] NSWLC 43
Decision Date: 11/21/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v JS, the respondent, a juvenile offender, faced sentencing in the County Court of Victoria. The case involved multiple offences, including breaking and entering, causing serious damage by fire, and threatening a witness. JS had previously pleaded guilty to these charges after a series of delays and breaches of conditional liberty orders. The court needed to determine an appropriate sentence considering the seriousness of the offences, JS's age, and the need to balance public justice with rehabilitation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to impose a custodial sentence or an alternative sentence for JS, given the gravity of the offences and the respondent's history of late guilty pleas and breaches of conditional liberty. The court had to consider whether the principles of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation justified a custodial sentence or if an alternative sentence could achieve the same aims.

The County Court held that despite the seriousness of the offences, a custodial sentence was not appropriate given JS's age and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need to avoid unnecessary criminalisation of young offenders and the importance of providing opportunities for rehabilitation. The court found that a combination of supervision orders, community service, and mandatory supervision could adequately address the objectives of sentencing while promoting JS's rehabilitation. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring the safety of the community and deterring future offending.

The court ordered JS to be subject to a supervision order for two years, perform 100 hours of community service, and be subject to mandatory supervision for one year. JS was also ordered to pay reparations to the victims and adhere to certain conditions to prevent reoffending.

Orders