R v Bolin - [2019] NSWDC 744

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bolin [2019] NSWDC 744
Hearing dates: 8 November 2019
Decision date: 08 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months; with a non parole period of 2 years 3 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - enter dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence - intimidation - contravene apprehended domestic violence order - special circumstances to vary ratio of non parole period to head sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), S112(2); Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Wade Bolin (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Sutherland (ODPP)
Mr Opper (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/298916
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Wade Bolin, you appear for sentence today in relation to three offences.
First, the offence of aggravated enter dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, that indictable offence being intimidation. This involves a contravention of s 112(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period.
Secondly, the offence of intimidation. This involves a contravention of s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years’ imprisonment. Again there is no standard non‑parole period.
Thirdly, the offence of contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. This involves a contravention of s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act. The maximum penalty in relation to that offence is 2 years’ imprisonment.
The facts surrounding your offending are substantially contained in a document entitled "Agreed Facts." Slightly recast by me as to style but not substance, the relevant facts are as follows.
For some years before January 2017, you had been in a domestic defacto relationship with the victim of your offending conduct.
On 24 January 2017 that relationship had deteriorated to the point that the victim found it necessary to go to the police and seek an apprehended domestic violence order in which she was named as the person in need of protection and you were named as the defendant.
By 14 June 2018 your relationship with the victim had come to an end, although there was some continuing interaction between the two of you.
On the morning of 14 June 2018, although the relationship had come to an end, you and she were still living at an address in Miller. There was a third person on those premises on that morning. You were asleep and the victim went to wake you because it was your birthday. You did not want to be woken and an argument broke out between the two of you. Ultimately she left the room to go to the rear of the premises where the argument continued.
The third adult person in the house went to look after the children who were present.
The argument got worse and you then punched the victim 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 Bolin

Details

AGLC: R v Bolin [2019] NSWDC 744
Case: [2019] NSWDC 744
Decision Date: 08 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the defendant, Bolin, was convicted of entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence. The offence took place in the context of an ongoing family dispute, and involved Bolin contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the judge was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, the court had to consider the appropriate penalty for the offence of entering a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. Secondly, the court had to consider whether there were any special circumstances that would warrant varying the usual ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence. The prosecution argued that the offence was serious and warranted a substantial sentence, while the defence argued for a more lenient sentence due to the defendant's personal circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the offence was indeed serious, as it involved a breach of an apprehended domestic violence order and the intent to commit a serious indictable offence. However, the court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his previous good character and the fact that he had shown remorse for his actions. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was an aggregate term of imprisonment of four years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. This sentence took into account both the seriousness of the offence and the special circumstances of the case.

The court's final orders were that Bolin be imprisoned for a total of four years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of both the seriousness of the offence and the special circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months; with a non parole period of 2 years 3 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 Bolin [2019] NSWDC 744
Hearing dates:	8 November 2019
Decision date:	08 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months; with a non parole period of 2 years 3 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - enter dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence - intimidation - contravene apprehended domestic violence order - special circumstances to vary ratio of non parole period to head sentence.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), S112(2); Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Wade Bolin (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Sutherland (ODPP) Mr Opper (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/298916
Publication restriction:	Nil