R v Bradley Alan Smith - [2018] NSWDC 18

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bradley Alan Smith [2018] NSWDC 18
Hearing dates: 13 February 2018
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Term of imprisonment less than two years imposed. Offender to be assessed for suitability to serve sentence by way of intensive correction order in the community.

Catchwords: Intentionally destroying property by means of fire
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
Newton v State of Western Australia (2006) WACA 247
Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v Bilal Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 297
R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118
R v Shortland [2013] NSWCCA 4
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bradley Alan Smith (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Queenan (Crown Prosecutor)
Solicitor:
E Renard (Offender)

File Number(s): 17/62542
Publication restriction: Non publication for co-accused BB

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender pleaded guilty when arraigned on an Indictment to an offence pursuant to s 195(1A)(b), in that he did on 24 December 2016 at Bulahdelah, in company with BB, intentionally destroy property, namely an office building situated at 1 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah, the property of Anthony Dorney, by means of fire.
The offender has asked that a further matter be dealt with on a Form 1, an offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 of aggravated break and enter in company. The offender has admitted his guilt in respect to that matter.
The offender was committed for sentence on 5 September 2017 from the Taree Local Court. The sentence hearing took place on 13 February 2018.

The sentence hearing

The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It included a Statement of Agreed Facts, which may be summarised as follows. The property on which the offending occurred lies on the outskirts of the Bulahdelah township and comprises some 10 acres. On it, the owner operates a saw mill, dying plant and a transport business. On the property are an office building and weighbridge control room, together with other structures. On 23 December 2016, the operation of the business ceased for the Christmas holidays and the premises were secured.
In the early hours of the next morning, 24 December 2016, the offender and co‑offender, a minor who was then aged 15 years, walked from the nearby township onto the property, and at first looked through certain parked vehicles for items to steal. They drew graffiti on two of the trucks and then broke into the office building, which was locked and secured. Having gained entry, they took a fire extinguisher and a small sum of money. The offenders became concerned that the police may find their fingerprints at the scene. They decided to burn the building in order to conceal the break and enter offence by destroying any potential evidence. Initially, they tried 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 Bradley Alan Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley Alan Smith [2018] NSWDC 18
Case: [2018] NSWDC 18
Decision Date: 16 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bradley Alan Smith was heard in a Magistrates Court where the defendant was charged with intentionally destroying property by setting fire to a residential building. The incident in question led to significant damage to the property, and the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. The court had to determine an appropriate penalty for the defendant, considering the gravity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of a suitable sentence for the offence of intentionally destroying property by fire. The court needed to weigh the severity of the crime against the defendant’s personal circumstances, including his background and any mitigating factors. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an alternative to imprisonment, such as an intensive correction order, would be appropriate given the defendant's suitability and the circumstances of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, noting the potential for significant harm and the impact on the victim. However, the court also took into account the defendant's guilty plea and his otherwise clean criminal record. The court decided that a term of imprisonment less than two years would be appropriate, reflecting both the severity of the crime and the defendant's personal circumstances. Furthermore, the court directed that the defendant be assessed for suitability to serve the sentence by way of an intensive correction order, which would allow him to serve the sentence in the community under strict supervision.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a term of imprisonment less than two years, with the condition that the defendant be assessed for suitability to serve this sentence by way of an intensive correction order. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment less than two years imposed. Offender to be assessed for suitability to serve sentence by way of intensive correction order in the community.

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 Bradley Alan Smith [2018] NSWDC 18
Hearing dates:	13 February 2018
Decision date:	16 February 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Term of imprisonment less than two years imposed. Offender to be assessed for suitability to serve sentence by way of intensive correction order in the community.
Catchwords:	Intentionally destroying property by means of fire
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 Newton v State of Western Australia (2006) WACA 247 Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145 R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85 R v Bilal Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 297 R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118 R v Shortland [2013] NSWCCA 4
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bradley Alan Smith (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: B Queenan (Crown Prosecutor) Solicitor: E Renard (Offender)
File Number(s):	17/62542
Publication restriction:	Non publication for co-accused BB