R v Bird - [2019] NSWDC 675

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bird [2019] NSWDC 675
Hearing dates: 8 November 2019
Date of orders: 15 November 2019
Decision date: 15 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
Taking into account matter on a Forms 1 sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Make a compensation order in the total amount of $14,259.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Forms 1 – Dishonestly obtain property by deception – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage – Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking – Larceny – Aggravation - Unsophisticated offending - Offences committed to support drug habit – On conditional liberty at time of offending – Sad and traumatic upbringing -
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Procedure Act
Bail Act
Cases Cited: R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50.
Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Daniel James Bird
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
Legal Aid Commission – The Offender

File Number(s): 2018/00189058

Judgment

Introduction

Daniel John Shiels, aka Daniel John Bird, a name he prefers, appears to be sentenced on a total of 14 charges. Six of those charges are for sentence following committal (“the committal matters”) and eight are to be dealt with pursuant to sections 166 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act in that they are to be dealt with by way of what is referred to as summary sentencing with this court exercising the limited powers of the Local Court (“the summary matters”). In addition in relation to one of the committal matters and one of the summary matters there are two separate form one matters to take into account.
The Crown material was contained in a bundle which became exhibit A.
Tab six of exhibit A sets out a lengthy recitation of the agreed facts running to some 15 pages. There is a certain similarity to a significant number of the charges and the agreed facts can be adequately recorded by describing the offender’s main modus operandi and then by setting the matters out in a table to identify the more significant particular aspects of the offences. In a hopefully informative way I propose carrying out my assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence in the table following setting out the facts of each offence. In the Crown sentencing bundle which became exhibit A committal matters were numbered one to six and the summary matters in a following list were numbered one to eight. In the below table the left-hand column refers to the committal offences by number only and the summary offences by the letter S followed by the number corresponding to exhibit A. The reference to F1 and F2 is a reference to the two form ones. Sequence numbers and H references were also referred to in exhibit…

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 R v Bird

Details

AGLC: R v Bird [2019] NSWDC 675
Case: [2019] NSWDC 675
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bird, the defendant was convicted of multiple criminal offences including obtaining property by deception, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and failing to appear in court in accordance with bail conditions. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia, where the defendant's sentence was being determined. The central issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the defendant's criminal activities and whether certain factors should be taken into account in determining the length and conditions of the sentence.

The court had to consider the nature and severity of the offences, as well as the defendant's background and personal circumstances. The defendant had committed the offences while on conditional liberty, and the court noted that the offences were driven by the defendant's drug habit. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's difficult and traumatic upbringing, which had contributed to their current situation. The court also considered the defendant's failure to appear in court as required by their bail conditions. The court ultimately decided that the defendant should be sentenced under the Forms 1 sentencing regime, which allows for a more flexible and tailored approach to sentencing.

After considering all the factors, the court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years. The court also made a compensation order for the total amount of $14,259 to be paid by the defendant. The court took into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences while also providing an opportunity for the defendant to rehabilitate and address the underlying issues that led to their criminal behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

Taking into account matter on a Forms 1 sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Make a compensation order in the total amount of $14,259.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Bird [2019] NSWDC 675
Hearing dates:	8 November 2019
Date of orders:	15 November 2019
Decision date:	15 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	Taking into account matter on a Forms 1 sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Make a compensation order in the total amount of $14,259.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Forms 1 – Dishonestly obtain property by deception – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage – Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking – Larceny – Aggravation - Unsophisticated offending - Offences committed to support drug habit – On conditional liberty at time of offending – Sad and traumatic upbringing -
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Criminal Procedure Act Bail Act
Cases Cited:	R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50. Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Daniel James Bird
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Legal Aid Commission – The Offender
File Number(s):	2018/00189058