R v Baker; R v Lane; R v Law - [2014] NSWDC 267

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Baker; R v Lane; R v Law [2014] NSWDC 267
Decision date: 11 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Baker: for four offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, to commence on 11 November 2014.
Lane: for two offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of three years and three months with a non-parole period of one year and seven months, to commence on 11 November 2014.
Law: for three offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company; recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and ten months, to commence on 11 November 2014.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - offences against the person during break and enter - sentence - relevant factors - Baker - prior conviction for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm - trained boxer - strong and supportive relationship - many personal references - well regarded young man - acceptance of actions as wrong - expression of remorse - low risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - Lane - prior conviction for larceny and trespass - supportive family -fulltime employment - appreciation of impact on victims - low risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - Law - prior conviction for possessing a prohibited drug - supportive family - past substance abuse issues - prior major depressive disorder in partial remission - did not take medication on night of offence - modest allowance for psychiatric vulnerability - demonstrated remorse - low to medium risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - victim impact statement
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 59(1), 59(2), 112(2)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
William Peter Baker (offender)
Ian Lane (offender)
Jarrod Mark Law (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Healey (for William Peter Baker)
J Fitzgerald (for Jarrod Mark Law)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
CDG Law (for Ian Lane)

File Number(s): 2013/00361651; 2013/00368372; 2013/00361910

Judgment

I am sentencing three young men who, after an afternoon and night of drinking, committed a series of very serious crimes. Each of them comes from a relatively stable background and has good employment prospects.
The young men I am sentencing are William Peter Baker, Jarrod Mark Law and Ian Lane. Mr Baker has been charged with four offences, Mr Law with three offences and Mr Lane with two offences.
All three have been charged with the offence of aggravated break and enter the house of Liam Tomlinson and committing a serious indictable offence, namely, assaulting him and causing him actual bodily harm. They did that whilst in company. That crime is an offence against s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament regards it as such a serious crime that it has fixed a maximum of twenty years imprisonment to the offence. Not only that, Parliament has fixed a standard non-parole period of five years to that offence.
Mr Baker, Mr Law and Mr Lane are also charged with assaulting Dominic Faranda, causing him actual bodily harm. Again, they were in the company of each other. That is a crime against s 59(2) of the Crimes Act. Parliament has fixed a maximum of seven years imprisonment to that offence.
Mr Baker alone is charged with assaulting Kieran Catsicus, occasioning him actual bodily harm. That offence is against s 59(1) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum of five years imprisonment.
Mr Baker and Mr Law are together charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, whilst they were in company with each other, to Kieran Catsicus. That offence has a maximum of fourteen years imprisonment. Again, Parliament regards that as so serious that it has fixed a standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment.
I formally convict each man of the crimes that I have just recited.
Each of the men has pleaded at what Mr H Fitzhardinge, who appears for the Director of Public Prosecutions, agrees is the earliest available opportunity. That means that in due course there will be a discount of 25 per cent in any sentences which will be imposed.
Each man was bailed after his arrest, so any sentences would date from today.
It is important for a judge to set out in remarks on sentence just what happened to bring about the charges which the judge is sentencing the offenders for. In this case there is an agreed statement of what happened contained in exhibit A.
The three men started drinking at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of 30 November 2013. They drank over a period of about nine hours, consuming two bottles of spirits and a further half bottle of vodka mixed with Red Bull energy drink. At about half past ten that night the three of them left where they were, which was at Singleton Heights. Mr Law and Mr Baker left first. Mr Lane followed and caught up with them. When asked what they were doing, Mr Law replied, “I am going to fight Chris Chaplin.”
They got to Mr Chaplin’s house which was also in Singleton Heights. There were a few people inside, including Liam Tomlinson and Dominic Faranda. They were sitting in the lounge room watching a movie. As it happens, Chris Chaplin was not at home. The front door and screen door were closed. Mr Law knocked on the screen door but no one answered. Mr Lane opened the screen door and, as the facts record, “then kicked the main door once with his foot. The main door to the premises flew open”.
Mr Law went in first. He was followed by the other two. As they went in Mr Lane told those inside to stay sitting on the lounge. Mr Tomlinson and Mr Faranda did as they were told. Mr Law asked, “Are you Liam Tomlinson?” Mr Tomlinson agreed that he was. In response to that, the facts record that Mr Law “moved forward and repeatedly punched the victim Tomlinson in the head”. Mr Baker “also punched Tomlinson”. Mr Lane remained standing in the lounge, watching the others punch Mr Tomlinson in the head.
That assault on Mr Tomlinson, primarily by Mr Law and Mr Baker but with Mr Lane close by, constitutes the aggravated break, enter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which is the main offence which all of the men are charged with.
Mr Faranda understandably was concerned for Mr Tomlinson. He stood up and said, “What do you think you're doing?” Mr Lane’s response to that reasonable question was to move towards Mr Faranda and punch him “about five times in the head with a closed fist”. Mr Faranda fell to the floor. Mr Tomlinson broke free and the situation calmed.
That punching of Mr Faranda constitutes the second offence that all three men have pleaded guilty to of assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst in company.
The assaults on Mr Tomlinson and Mr Faranda were such that they went to Singleton hospital. Mr Tomlinson suffered a swollen and bruised eye and Mr Faranda received bruising and swelling to his face, eyes and head as well as a cut lip.
Mr Tomlinson and Mr Faranda returned to the house. By that time Mr Chaplin had turned up. The agreed facts go on to record that about “half an hour later Baker and Law returned” to the house. They walked back there with somebody else. Others arrived. Mr Baker and Mr Law stood outside and called out asking about a Mr Kieran Catsicus. Kieran Catsicus acknowledged who he was and Mr Baker said, “I hear you want to fight me?” Mr Catsicus reasonably replied, “No, I don't want to fight. Why did youse bash Liam?” Mr Law claimed that Mr Liam Tomlinson had threatened to kill him. Mr Chaplin, who, as I said, had come back to his house, called out, “I don't want this shit near my house.” Mr Baker ignored that. He went on, as the facts record, “badgering Catsicus to fight him”. Mr Catsicus repeatedly said, “I don't want to fight you.”
There was another man there with Mr Baker and Mr Law. His name was Greg Flynn. It was at his house earlier in the evening that the three had had so much to drink. The facts record that Mr Flynn at this later time “encouraged Baker and Law to bash Catsicus”. They were told that Mr Catsicus was not inside. Mr Baker decided to look for himself and they went through the house with Mr Tomlinson. Mr Catsicus was found in the backyard.
The facts then go on to record that Mr Baker “approached Catsicus and said, ‘Don't worry. I just want to talk.’ Catsicus said, ‘I don't want to fight,’ and Baker immediately punched him with his right fist to the victim’s left jaw and he fell to the ground. He felt one his back teeth was loose and he was coughing blood.” In response to that, the facts go on to record that Mr Catsicus “was punched a couple of more times as he lay on the ground”. Mr Baker said, “I’m going to fucking kill you. If you go to the cops I’ll fucking kill you!” Mr Catsicus said that he would not do that. Not content, Mr Baker “punched him to the left cheek with a swinging right punch”. I should add that Mr Baker is a trained boxer.
Mr Baker then walked back into the house. He “walked up behind Faranda, punched him on the side of the face” and claimed that he was a liar for not being able to find Mr Catsicus when he went inside. That assault on Mr Catsicus by Mr Baker constitutes the assault occasioning actual bodily harm that Mr Baker alone is charged with.
Mr Catsicus walked outside the house. He called triple 0. Mr Baker walked up to him and asked who he was phoning. When he replied, “No one,” Mr Baker responded by punching him to the left cheek with his right fist. Mr Catsicus stumbled backwards. He crouched down near a wall. He protected his head with his arms and body with his knees. In response, Mr Baker “pulled him up by the shirt collar and said, ‘If you go to the cops we will fuck kill you’.” Mr Catsicus said that he would not and he was punched under the right eye for his efforts. He fell to the ground. The facts record that Mr Law “grabbed him by the shirt and dropped him”. Mr Catsicus saw both Mr Law and Mr Baker punch him to the head. Mr Baker “took hold of Catsicus by the hair and the victim felt a kick to his head. Catsicus was dropped to the ground and he feigned being unconscious. He heard Law say, ‘Good night, sweetheart’.” He heard voices moving away. He sensibly lay there for five minutes or so. Mr Faranda came to help him.
That last assault jointly by Mr Baker and Mr Law amounts to the crime that they are jointly charged with of being in company recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to Kieran Catsicus. The grievous bodily harm is a reference to the fact that not only did Mr Catsicus receive cuts to his nose, lips and head and bruising to both eyes but he received a fractured lower jaw. He had to have surgery to his jaw and “now has a permanent plate and screws in his jaw”. He lost one of his back teeth.
Mr Baker and Mr Lane were arrested on that day, 1 December 2013, and Mr Law nearly a week later on 6 December 2013. They were co-operative with the police and generally made appropriate admissions.
In this case there is a victim impact statement from Mr Catsicus. It is important for me to read it out because a judge, in sentencing offenders, takes into account the injuries sustained by a victim and the impact on the victim. It repeats that he sustained a broken jaw which required surgery and a plate. He says that he could “not eat properly for an extended period of time, causing weight loss and fatigue”. It records that he still cannot eat properly and the “plate causes considerable ongoing pain”. At the time of his statement he had lost a partial amount of taste and smell, which is part of an ongoing medical investigation to see how to correct it. His headaches have “increased”. Medication is used to help. This happens daily. His jaw clicks and cramps on a daily basis and is very uncomfortable and painful. He talks with a lisp. He is harder to understand. He notes that he has sustained nerve damage and “partial loss of feeling in face”. Not surprisingly, he has nightmares of what happened and flashbacks when he is awake. He has difficulty in sleeping. He has stopped training. He has become less trusting of others and more unsure of himself and is constantly aware of changes in his facial physiology. His behaviour and coping skills have deteriorated. He is much quieter and reserved. He avoids going out. He has a low tolerance and is prone to anger. He prefers to stay alone. He is seeing a counsellor.
I have some information about the criminal records of each man. Significantly, Mr Baker has a conviction which was recorded in the Children's Court in 2011 for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. He was put on probation for a period of two years.
Mr Law has on his record a common assault but I should note that no conviction was recorded and he was put on a good behaviour bond. He also has a conviction for possessing a prohibited drug.
Mr Lane has a conviction for larceny and the equivalent to trespass.
There is for each offender a presentence report. Mr Baker lives in Singleton. He is still nineteen. He turns twenty this Thursday. He is in a relationship with a woman. It is a strong and supportive relationship. He has a child from a previous relationship. He is a first year apprentice carpenter working in the local area. He is well regarded in that work. He told the officer that he recalls being “extremely intoxicated” and attributed the violence which he got engaged in to the use of the alcohol. He appeared to accept that his actions were wrong and had arranged to see a psychologist. The case manager who prepared the report thought that he was a “low risk of re-offending”.
Mr Law’s presentence report notes that he is now twenty. He turned twenty earlier this year. He too was therefore nineteen when he committed this offence. He has a “supportive, pro-social family”. He has worked fulltime since leaving school. He “disclosed having substance abuse issues in the past and suffered from a major depressive episode in 2013”. I will return to that. The reporting officer thought that he was a “low/medium risk of re-offending”. He too admitted the use of alcohol at the time. He is an automobile spray-painter apprentice. The report notes a breakdown in a relationship in early 2013 and an employment difficulty and the commencement of prohibited drugs. It records an admission to Lingard private hospital for treatment “after three suicide attempts”. It notes a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder and an acknowledgment by him that “on the night of the offence he did not take his medication deliberately so he could consume alcohol, as he was aware that his medication and alcohol should not be consumed at the same time”. He acknowledged feeling terrible about the offences.
The officer preparing Mr Lane’s report assessed him as a “low risk of re-offending”. He had turned twenty in August last year and is now twenty-one. He also comes from a “supportive, pro-social family”. He has been actively involved in sport and “has been employed fulltime since leaving school in 2010”. He acknowledged the wrongness of his actions and articulated the victims’ experiences. Indeed he wanted to speak to the victims directly and to apologise.
For Mr Baker, there are very many personal references. They are from people who have known him for many years, some of them all of his life. They also know his family. He is obviously very well regarded as a young man and the references record the remorse which he expressed in being involved in these offences.
For Mr Lane, there is a reference from someone who has known him “almost all of his life”. The referee has known the family and Mr Lane’s reflection of the family values of “working hard and being courteous and decent to people he comes into contact with”. The referees in all cases were surprised and disappointed by the behaviour which they were told about.
Mr Law has references from his employer and from friends of the family. Again, he is well regarded, as is his family.
I need to say something more about Mr Law. Mr Law is the offender who has a psychiatric diagnosis of a major depressive disorder in partial remission. That diagnosis comes from a forensic psychiatrist Dr Christopher Bench. Dr Bench acknowledges the history of three suicide attempts and an admission to a private hospital for some three weeks afterwards. During that period in hospital he was treated with antipsychotic medication. Dr Bench was able to note that his mental health at the time of offending was below normal and that he felt down. There was no note of any psychotic symptoms at the time of the offences. There is no current evidence of any psychotic symptoms. He also has a diagnosis of polysubstance dependence, having abused drugs such as alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines. Dr Bench thought it likely that his dysfunction resulted from his substance abuse and was contributory to the onset of his depressive episode and led to his psychotic symptoms at the time of his admission to hospital. Because of his alcohol consumption, it was obvious that he behaved more impulsively. I imagine all of the three of them did.
Mr Law has suffered from a speech defect and I have material about that. I have material about his admission to Lingard private hospital, including confirmation of the prescription of antipsychotic medication. There is a favourable reference from his employers and from a family friend who has known him for some sixteen years, as well as a local man who has known him for some ten years.
All three were called to give evidence. Mr J Fitzgerald of counsel called his client Mr Law who disclosed his breakdown in early 2013 linked to a relationship ending and pressure and bullying at work. He has suffered bullying over the years because of his speech defect. Mr Law confirmed his suicide attempts. Mr Law confirmed that he did not follow up with a psychiatrist or a psychologist after he left the hospital. He has good employment and is living at home with his parents. He exhibited contrition for his offending behaviour.
Mr I Gray called his client Mr Lane. He is living in a house which he shares. He has a good job as a supervisor at a local abattoir. He has been employed there for over a year. He has never been unemployed. He too appreciates what he put the victims of his crimes through.
Mr T Healey of counsel called his client Mr Baker, who also immediately expressed his contrition and regret for what he had done. He was familiar with the victim impact statement. He too is a father and has a three year old daughter Laylah. His employer and his family were present in court, as indeed are relatives and friends of the other offenders. He is good at sport, in particular, as I said, is a trained boxer.
Mr Baker’s mother, Janelle King, confirms her son’s contrition and says he understands the seriousness of what he has done. It has affected the whole family, which is an otherwise hardworking family of which Mr Baker is part.
Mr Fitzhardinge helpfully provided written submissions in respect of each offender and I heard the legal representatives of each offender in their submissions to me. I have reviewed all of those submissions over the last few days and have taken them into account.
I agree that the initial offending of breaking in and assaulting those inside was not a well-planned event but nor was it spontaneous or impulsive. All three men set off and made their way to the house knowing that there was likely to be some violence. The violence occurred in the home of the victims, which itself is an aggravating feature.

In addition, Mr Lane was in breach of conditional liberty because he was on a good behaviour bond at the time that he committed these offences. In other words, he had been given a good behaviour bond instead of a prison sentence by another court and he abused that by committing these further offences.
To my mind, Mr Fitzhardinge’s submission about the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences is accurate. The first offence committed by all three men falls below the middle of the range of objective seriousness.
The assault on Mr Faranda, as Mr Fitzhardinge said, was on a person who was moving to protect somebody else from assault and involved the infliction of a large number of blows. It falls towards the middle of the range of objective seriousness; by that I mean it falls within that range.
Mr Catsicus received a blow to the face and fell to the ground, where he was attacked further. In inflicting that offence, Mr Baker committed an offence which fell within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for that kind of crime.
Mr Fitzhardinge submitted that the offence committed by Mr Baker and Mr Law of grievous bodily harm to Mr Catsicus “falls below the middle of the range for offences of its type”, but I accept it did involve “a significant assault upon a defenceless victim whilst on the ground”.
I accept that all men are contrite, and genuinely so. I accept their backgrounds and the references which are provided for all of them. The consumption of alcohol does not mitigate their offending at all. The only impact is that it means it was not a cold and calculated crime committed by sober criminals. It was impulsive but, as I have said, nevertheless it had a degree of planning and was not spontaneous.
Mr Baker has on his record another offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
All men have good jobs and are well regarded in the workplace.
All men will receive a benefit of 25 per cent off the sentences which they would have otherwise received because they have pleaded guilty and the justice system is able to work more efficiently because of those pleas.
The men are aware of their need to rehabilitate themselves and their behaviour and they are taking steps in that direction. Their likelihood of re-offending I assess as estimated by the presentence reports.
Mr Lane I am sentencing for only two offences, not three or four. Mr Fitzgerald pointed to his client’s reduced culpability as distinct from criminality. He was involved in the same criminal behaviour but his culpability was reduced, so argues Mr Fitzgerald, because of his psychiatric vulnerability. I think there is some force in that, although that force is reduced because of the period of some months between his psychotic episode and the offending. I do not think that his mental health provides, as Mr Fitzgerald argued, substantial mitigation. I will make some very modest allowance for it.
Some submissions were made for all three men concerning suspended sentences and intensive correction orders. As Mr Fitzhardinge correctly pointed out and as the Court of Criminal Appeal points out, my job is first to fix the appropriate sentences and then to determine how they should be served. There are points at which the options of suspended sentences or intensive corrections orders are not available. I turn now to fix the what I regard as appropriate sentences.
I will first indicate overall sentences and then indicate the discounts. In respect of Mr Baker for the first offence I would regard an appropriate penalty as four years imprisonment; for his second offence, three years imprisonment; for the third offence, three years imprisonment; and the fourth offence, four years imprisonment. Those are the offences contained in counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment.
In respect of Mr Law, I would have regarded an appropriate sentence given his engagement in count 1 as four and a half years imprisonment but I am going to reduce it to four years imprisonment because of a slight adjustment concerning his psychiatric condition. For count 2, an appropriate sentence is three years imprisonment; and for count 4, four years imprisonment.
For Mr Lane, an appropriate penalty for count 1 is four years imprisonment; and for count 2, three and a half years imprisonment.
Each man, as I said, has pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity. I would therefore discount each of those appropriate sentences that I have indicated by 25 per cent.
So the discounted sentences are these for Mr Baker. Count 1, three years imprisonment; count 2, two years and three months imprisonment; count 3, two years and three months imprisonment; count 4, four years imprisonment. [Sic. This should be three years imprisonment.]
For Mr Law, the appropriate discounted sentences are count 1, three years imprisonment; count 2, two years and three months imprisonment; count 4, three years imprisonment.
For Mr Lane, for the first count, count 1, his discounted sentence is three years imprisonment; and for count 2 his discounted sentence is two years and six months imprisonment.
It is important to bear in mind that there were separate crimes and in some instances separate victims of these crimes. It is open to accumulate the sentences but that would mean that sentences imposed would far outweigh the totality of the criminal activity which the men engaged in. I will accumulate the sentences in one moment. In due course I will fix an aggregate sentence for each of the offenders.
For Mr Baker, I would accumulate the sentences for count 1 and count 2 by three months, so that the sentence would be three years and three months. I would accumulate count 3 for Mr Baker by six months, so that the ongoing total would be three years and nine months imprisonment. For the final count 4 for Mr Baker, I would accumulate that by three months, so that the total sentence for Mr Baker will be four years imprisonment.
For Mr Law, I would accumulate the first two sentences by three months, so that the sentence would be three years and three months. The last sentence I would accumulate by six months, so that for Mr Law his sentence will be three years and nine months.
For Mr Lane, I would accumulate the sentences by three months, so that for Mr Lane his overall sentence will be three years and three months imprisonment.
Normally for Mr Baker’s four years of imprisonment a non-parole period would be three-quarters of that period. However, there are special circumstances which allow me to reduce that non-parole period. Instead of 75 per cent, I will fix each non-parole period at 50 per cent.
The factors which are relevant in this case in making that adjustment are these. For each man it is his first time in custody. For each man he is quite young, not recently adult. And for each man there needs to be an opportunity for supervised parole to help with the rehabilitation.
For Mr Baker, I would regard the non-parole period as therefore being two years imprisonment.
For Mr Law, the non-parole period will be one year and ten months imprisonment.
For Mr Lane, the non-parole period will be one year and six months imprisonment.

HIS HONOUR: Gentlemen at the Bar table, in a moment I am going to sentence your clients. Mr Healey, the sentences will date from today. Your client’s is, and I say this with respect, relatively straightforward. It’s four years with a two year non-parole period. Mr Ramsland, you're appearing for Mr Law, am I right?

RAMSLAND: Yes, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Your client’s 50 per cent is one year and ten months. I'd just like you to check that. And Mr Gray, I'd just like you to check your client’s non-parole period of one year and six months. In each case I have halved it but where it is a half month I’ve gone down by a month rather than up. Do you mind both checking that, please? Just tell me when you've done that. Mr Ramsland, have I got--

RAMSLAND: Yes, if you're rounding down, your Honour, that’s correct.

HIS HONOUR: I’ll round it down to one year and ten months.

RAMSLAND: Otherwise it would be twenty-two months point five, so that’s correct.

HIS HONOUR: Exactly, okay. Mr Gray? Take your time.

GRAY: Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: No, look, I might have that wrong.

GRAY: I think there’s a month--

HIS HONOUR: No, look, you're right, you're right.

GRAY: One year five--

HIS HONOUR: It should be one year and seven months.

GRAY: Seven months.

HIS HONOUR: Yeah. It should be one year and seven months for Mr Lane. Does that sound right? Yep, all right.

Mr Baker, I have indicated the sentences I would have imposed for each of the four offences. I impose an aggregate sentence for each of those offences of four years imprisonment and I specify a non-parole period of two years. Your sentence will commence today, which is 11 November 2014, and will expire on 10 November 2018. The non-parole period will commence today, 11 November 2014, and will expire on 10 November 2016.
Mr Law, I have indicated the individual sentences I would have imposed for your three crimes. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of three years and nine months imprisonment. There will be a non-parole period of one year and ten months. Your sentence commences today, 11 November 2014, and expires on 10 August 2018. Your non-parole period of one year and ten months commences today and will expire on 10 September 2016.
Mr Lane, I have indicated the individual sentences I would have imposed for you. Instead of those, I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of three years and three months. That commences today, 11 November 2014, and will expire on 10 February 2018. The non-parole period for you is one year and seven months. It commences today and will expire on 10 June 2016.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Fitzhardinge, Mr Healey, Mr Gray and Mr Ramsland, if you would please take your time to check the figures.

RAMSLAND: I’ve done that, your Honour. They're correct.

HEALEY: Yes, I’ve had a look, your Honour, and mine are correct, your Honour.

GRAY: I agree, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And the non-parole periods?

GRAY: Yes, your Honour.

FITZHARDINGE: I agree, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Okay, good. I don't fix conditions of parole because they're all over three years.

FITZHARDINGE: That’s right, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I’m going to explain again in a moment but anything else

Mr Fitzhardinge? I don't think so.

FITZHARDINGE: The only potential issue is whether the report of Dr Bench might--

HIS HONOUR: You are right. You are quite right. Thank you for reminding me.

FITZHARDINGE: --accompany the offender Law.

HIS HONOUR: You are quite right. Dr Bench’s report, that was Mr Law and you're appearing for him, Mr Ramsland?

RAMSLAND: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Would you get your client’s instructions? It could be today or in the next day or so. The question is this, whether the medical material which was tendered, particularly Dr Bench’s report--

RAMSLAND: I think it’s appropriate.

HIS HONOUR: --should accompany him?

RAMSLAND: Yes, your Honour, I understand that.

HIS HONOUR: You have instructions to tell me that?

RAMSLAND: He’ll be satisfied with that, yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Okay. I’ll make arrangements for that to go, perhaps not in custody with him today but there’s a fax number which we have which will be sent to those who assess.

RAMSLAND: Yes, your Honour. Thank you.

Mr Baker, you are eligible for parole on 10 November 2016, two years from today. The Parole Authority will assess your eligibility. Once you are released on parole, your overall sentence sends on 10 November 2018.
Mr Law, your non-parole period will end on 10 September 2016. You are eligible for parole then. The Parole Authority assesses your eligibility. Once released on parole, your overall sentence will expire on 10 August 2018.
Mr Lane, your non-parole period will expire on 10 June 2016. You too will be eligible for parole on 10 June 2016. The Parole Authority assesses your eligibility at that stage, and your overall sentence will expire on 10 February 2018.

HIS HONOUR: I do not think there is anything else, apart from the fact that it is now ten past six and there are a lot of people who are here well beyond the time that they expected to be here, and I should record my appreciation for that.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 February 2015

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Baker; R v Lane; R v Law [2014] NSWDC 267
Decision date:	11 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Baker: for four offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, to commence on 11 November 2014. Lane: for two offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of three years and three months with a non-parole period of one year and seven months, to commence on 11 November 2014. Law: for three offences - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company; recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company - an aggregate sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and ten months, to commence on 11 November 2014.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - offences against the person during break and enter - sentence - relevant factors - Baker - prior conviction for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm - trained boxer - strong and supportive relationship - many personal references - well regarded young man - acceptance of actions as wrong - expression of remorse - low risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - Lane - prior conviction for larceny and trespass - supportive family -fulltime employment - appreciation of impact on victims - low risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - Law - prior conviction for possessing a prohibited drug - supportive family - past substance abuse issues - prior major depressive disorder in partial remission - did not take medication on night of offence - modest allowance for psychiatric vulnerability - demonstrated remorse - low to medium risk of re-offending - early plea of guilty - 25% discount - victim impact statement
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, ss 59(1), 59(2), 112(2)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) William Peter Baker (offender) Ian Lane (offender) Jarrod Mark Law (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: T Healey (for William Peter Baker) J Fitzgerald (for Jarrod Mark Law) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown) CDG Law (for Ian Lane)
File Number(s):	2013/00361651; 2013/00368372; 2013/00361910