R v Blackmore - [2022] NSWDC 763

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Blackmore [2022] NSWDC 763
Hearing dates: 29 September 2022 and 24 November 2022
Date of orders: 24 November 2022
Decision date: 24 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences —Robbery with an offensive weapon
CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Community Correction Order
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — COVID-19 — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Community Treatment Orders — Deprived childhood — Childhood sexual assault — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Moodiev R [2020] NSWCCA 160
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, 106 A Crim R 149
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

Category: Sentence
Parties: Corey John Blackmore (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
F Al Majed Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (for the offender)
J Azad for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/324458

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

When Corey Blackmore came before me today, he adhered to pleas of guilty to two serious offences:

Robbery Armed with an Offensive Weapon. That offence, pursuant to s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment; and

Intimidation Intending to Cause Harm. That offence, pursuant to s 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Because he indicted his pleas of guilty in the Local Court, I will reduce the otherwise appropriate sentences by 25% to reflect their utilitarian value. As he has served his sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms Al Majed, solicitor who appears for him, submitted that I could apply Victorian authorities which allowed for greater utilitarian discounts for pleas during the pandemic.
I cannot accept that submission. For indictable matters, s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) limits and restricts the utilitarian value of discounts. There is no COVID-19 provision, and 25% is what is allowed. It does not mean that a plea of guilty does not have other values.
There is regularly evidence before the Court that during the pandemic prisoners have suffered harsher conditions, including lockdowns, restricted access to programs, work, and visits. Those matters are all matters the Court should take into account. Prisoners are effectively helpless; they have to rely on others to ensure their safety from spread of the pandemic and endure the measures that have to be taken to…

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 Blackmore

Details

AGLC: R v Blackmore [2022] NSWDC 763
Case: [2022] NSWDC 763
Decision Date: 24 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the respondent, Blackmore, faced charges related to violent offences, including robbery with an offensive weapon and stalking or intimidation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent had a history of previous convictions, which played a significant role in the sentencing considerations.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the guidelines for sentencing and various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the offences against the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his criminal history, plea of guilty, drug addiction, mental illness, and disadvantaged background.

The court found that while the respondent's criminal history and the nature of the offences warranted a significant sentence, there were mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, drug addiction, mental illness, and deprived upbringing. Considering these factors, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for three years, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the objective seriousness of the crimes in its sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Blackmore [2022] NSWDC 763
Hearing dates:	29 September 2022 and 24 November 2022
Date of orders:	24 November 2022
Decision date:	24 November 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences —Robbery with an offensive weapon CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Community Correction Order SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — COVID-19 — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Community Treatment Orders — Deprived childhood — Childhood sexual assault — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Moodiev R [2020] NSWCCA 160 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, 106 A Crim R 149 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Corey John Blackmore (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: F Al Majed Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (for the offender) J Azad for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/324458