District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ashworth [2019] NSWDC 658 Hearing dates: 20 March 2019 & 16 April 2019 Date of orders: 16 April 2019 Decision date: 16 April 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennett SC DCJ Decision: Term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months
Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon
SENTENCING — Commencement — Pre-sentence custody period
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penaltyLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 27
Fernando [1992] 76 A Crim R 58
Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111
McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Elissa Ashworth (Offender)Representation: Jessica Pelliccione (Crown)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Nidal Abdi (Offender)
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/00041637
EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
-
Elissa Ashworth appeared in this Court before me, on 15 February 2019 for sentence proceedings which could not be reached because of the amount of work that I had before me that day. The matter was adjourned to 20 March 2019, with priority on that occasion, with an estimate of two hours. On that day, again the workload was large and the matter could commence but not conclude. In addition, there was a question with regard to what was to happen to the offender once she was released from custody and the extent to which special circumstances might be facilitated, with an extended period on parole. Relevant to that, was the proposal of her family, namely her birth father and his wife, to provide a home and care for her once she was released.
-
That was a significant aspect of this case, because of the, one might say, regrettable life history that this young woman has suffered through her formative years. I was not prepared to resolve the matter without having evidence from her birth father, to make sure that he understood the burden that he was accepting in conjunction with his wife because there can be no doubt that the offender will provide them with some challenges once she is released on parole and given the opportunity to live with them and hopefully redirect her life.
-
That was resolved today when her father was to attend court to give evidence. Unfortunately, whilst travelling from Wagga, he was involved in a motor vehicle incident and could not continue the journey, but at 1 o’clock, was available to give evidence by way of audio-visual link from Wagga to where he had returned, after the collision. He gave evidence of his relationship with his daughter, what he and his wife proposed to do once she is released to parole, and the extent to which he will be able to, in conjunction with his wife, assist her.
Continue reading R v Ashworth
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Ashworth [2019] NSWDC 658
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 658
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court required a careful balance of general principles of sentencing, the need for general deterrence, and the maximum penalty applicable to the offence. The court considered the nature of the offence, which involved violence and the use of an offensive weapon, and the defendant's guilty plea. The court also needed to evaluate the impact of the pre-sentence custody period on the final sentence. The court examined the relevant factors and principles of sentencing, including the overarching objective of deterring similar offences in the community.
In determining the sentence, the court applied the relevant legal principles, weighing the factors of general deterrence and the maximum penalty for the offence. The court concluded that a term of imprisonment was necessary, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. After considering the pre-sentence custody period and other mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of three years, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. This decision balanced the need for general deterrence with the specific circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months
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.