District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Barrett; R v Duncan [2020] NSWDC 558 Hearing dates: 18 September 2020 Date of orders: 18 September 2020 Decision date: 18 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Grant DCJ Decision: Both offenders sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Catchwords: Criminal law- sentencing – especially aggravated detain for advantage - co-offenders – Bugmy Principles- finding of special circumstances - form 1 offences
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Category: Sentence Parties: Regina
Noel Barret (Offender)
Matthew Duncan (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Barrett: Mr JohnsonSolicitors:
DPP: Mr ThomasDuncan: Mr Cooper (ALS Solicitor advocate)
Barrett: Mr Lamond
Ms Winn
File Number(s): 2020/00019180, 2020/00019182
Judgment - EX TEMPORE
INTRODUCTION
-
Matthew Duncan and Noel Barrett are co-offenders. The genesis of the offending relates to past relationships, drugs and vigilantism. The victim Dylan Perinoni had an intimate relationship with two different women, Jess Hammond and Frankie. Matthew Duncan had previously been in a relationship with Jess Hammond with whom he had a child. Noel Barrett had previously been in a relationship with Frankie with whom he had a child. The victim subsequently had a relationship with Frankie and had a child with her while Noel Barrett was serving a prison sentence between November 2017 to August 2019.
-
Mr Barrett had been staying at Hammond’s residence. The victim made contact with Hammond asking her to supply him with drugs and was annoyed with him for asking. The victim was staying at “The Palms”. It was not an oasis but rather a 13 room boarding complex at 320 David Street, South Albury.
-
On Sunday 19 January 2020 at about 5am the victim was asleep on a couch inside unit 11. He awoke to the sound of loud voices outside the unit. He heard his name called out. Both doors to the unit were open. He saw Mr Barrett and Mr Duncan standing inside the unit armed with weapons.
-
Mr Barrett had a tomahawk and Mr Duncan had a .22 calibre firearm. They all knew each other. Duncan pointed the firearm at the victim’s knees and said,
“You are going on the ground”.
-
Barrett said,
“You’re coming with us”.
-
The victim was led from the unit to a motor vehicle. He sat in the rear passenger seat of the vehicle. Duncan sat in the front passenger seat and Barrett sat in the driver’s seat. The victim pleaded not to be harmed. Duncan punched him to the face causing his mouth to bleed. The offenders accused him of stealing money and demanding drugs from a friend of theirs and the mother of one of his children. Barrett said,
“Make sure the safety is on”,
referring to the .22 calibre firearm.
-
The car was driven to Mungabareena Reserve. The vehicle slowed. The victim grabbed the barrel of the firearm and began wrestling with…
Continue reading R v Barrett; R v Duncan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Barrett; R v Duncan [2020] NSWDC 558
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 558
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the Bugmy Principles, which provide guidance on sentencing co-offenders in cases where one offender has played a minor role. The court found that both respondents played a significant role in the offence and that there were no special circumstances that warranted a departure from the Bugmy Principles. The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondents' criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.
The court concluded that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion in a reasoned and principled manner. The court also noted that the respondents had shown no remorse for their actions and had demonstrated a continuing pattern of criminal behaviour. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.
The final orders of the court were that both respondents be sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. The court noted that this sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from further offending by the respondents. The court also emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the offending.
Orders
Orders of the court
Both offenders sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 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.