District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Amanda Convery aka Crombie [2013] NSWDC 69 Hearing dates: 28 February 2013 Decision date: 28 February 2013 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of an overall term of imprisonment with a nonparole period of two and a half years, and a period of eligibility for parole of three and a half years, making a total overall sentence of six years.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Assault police officer in the execution of duty - Use offensive weapon to commit an indictable offence - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Cases Cited: R v Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Amanda Convery aka CrombieRepresentation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Services
File Number(s): 2012/102298
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: The offender, Amanda Convery, grew up in circumstances in which the decisions she made as to how she would live her life, in particular whether she would use drugs and whether she would commit crimes, were be made against a family background where she was surrounded by violence, drug use and offending surrounding her.
On top of that, Ms Convery suffers from a significant mental illness and a significant level of intellectual disability. She committed two serious crimes and they have caused significant harm, but in assessing the appropriate sentences to impose it is important to understand that, because of the sort of things I have already mentioned, her moral culpability is much less than it would otherwise have been.
Two police officers were engaged in traffic duties in Redfern in the early hours of 1 April last year. About 5 o'clock that morning Ms Convery, under the influence of drugs and having not taken her antipsychotic medication for some time, was walking along the street singing and swearing and holding a glass tumbler. She was approached by police who spoke to her about her behaviour. She then went on to the concourse of Redfern railway station. She continued to shout and she continued to swear. Constable Carasco approached her and asked her to quieten down and go home.
She kept gesticulating at Constable Flood, the other police officer, indicating that she should come over. At this stage Constable Flood ignored that suggestion, but over the next sixty minutes Ms Convery continued to swear at the police officers. She called them "white cunts" and "white dogs". The two officers were busy. They were involved with traffic duties which resulted from a large crane involved in building works being parked on the roadway.
Eventually Constable Carasco returned to Ms Convery. She said, "Why did you come over? Why didn't the other one", (clearly a reference to Constable Flood), "come over? I'm going to smash her." It was at about 6.02 that Constable Flood did go over to Ms Convery and spoke to her about her offensive language and behaviour. Ms Convery then said, "Do you want to charge me? Hey, I'll fucking show you." She then put…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Amanda Convery aka Crombie and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the case involved the sentencing of the defendant for her actions. The court had to determine the appropriate term and non-parole period, considering the severity of the offence, the use of an offensive weapon, and the harm caused. It also had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.
The court found that the assault on a police officer, coupled with the use of an offensive weapon, warranted a significant sentence. The judge emphasised the gravity of the offence and the harm caused. The court considered the defendant's background, including her previous criminal history, in determining the sentence. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced the defendant to an overall term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years and a period of eligibility for parole of three and a half years, making a total overall sentence of six years.
The court's decision reflected the need to deter such behaviour while also considering the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation. The sentence imposed aims to uphold the law and provide justice for the victim and the broader community.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of an overall term of imprisonment with a nonparole period of two and a half years, and a period of eligibility for parole of three and a half years, making a total overall sentence of six years.
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.