R v Boney

[2025] NSWDC 397

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Boney [2025] NSWDC 397

Hearing dates:

12/8/25-14/8/25, 19/8/25

Date of orders:

19/8/25

Decision date:

19 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bourke SC DCJ

Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 3 years 3 months with a NPP of 2 years 3 months (20/2/24-19/5/26).

I find special circumstances.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Aggravate break enter and steal – Knowing persons present

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52

R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

NSW DPP – Crown
Stanley Boney - Offender

Representation:

Mr S Meechan for Crown
Ms K Doherty for Offender

File Number(s):

24/4070

remarks on sentence

1. The offender, Mr Stanley Boney, stood trial on a charge of aggravated break, enter and steal in circumstances of aggravation, namely that he knew there were persons present or a person present in the building at the time. That offence occurred on 10 May 2023. It is an offence under s 112 subs (2) of the Crimes Act 1900. It carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, and a standard non-parole period of five years is specified for a middle range offence.

2. The offender stood trial from 12 August 2025, in a very short trial which completed the next day, the jury finding him guilty the following day. The proceedings were initially set down for hearing on sentence on 26 September 2025. However, due to the offender’s wish to have the proceedings finalised quickly, the proceedings were stood over to this week and have proceeded to sentence hearing today.

3. The maximum penalty and standard non-parole period, to which I have already referred, are guideposts in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard. The facts are to be determined by me based on the evidence at trial and must be consistent with the jury verdict. Matters of aggravation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Matters of mitigation, however, need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.

FACTS

4. The facts that I find drawn from the evidence at trial are as follows.

5. The premises in question were the Busy Bubbles Laundry at Kingswood. On 10 May 2023, Ms Danielle Barnier, who was mainly a delivery driver for the laundry, arrived at the rear of the premises at about 10.38am. CCTV captured her arrival and her entry via the rear door into the premises. It also captured her placing her backpack on a hook in the storeroom just inside the rear door at about 10.39am. CCTV also captured the fact that the offender had been lurking around the back of the premises from about 9.43am.

6. After Ms Barnier arrived and parked her van at about 10.38am, the offender was loitering near the van and apparently looking into the van. Around this same time, Ms…