R v Brown

Case [2020] NSWDC 70


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brown [2020] NSWDC 70
Hearing dates: 27 February 2020, 3 March 2020
Date of orders: 31 March 2020
Decision date: 31 March 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Weinstein SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of term of imprisonment. For orders see [65]

Catchwords:

SENTENCE – aggravated break and enter and commit – imprisonment – history of abuse and disadvantage – auditory hallucinations – depression and suicidal ideations – childhood trauma – Aboriginal – drug and alcohol addictions – prior criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220
R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Mouzomenos [2005] NSWCCA 203

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Sonny Brown (Defendant)
Representation: Mr Wilcox-Watson (Crown)
Ms Socorro (Defence)
File Number(s): 2019/99490
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. The offender Sonny Brown, born in 1998, is before the court for sentence for aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, contrary to section 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty is 20 years and the standard non-parole period is 5 years.

  2. There is also a Form 1 matter which the offender asks me to take into account when sentencing him, which is a charge of resist officer in execution of duty, contrary to section 58 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Evidence

  1. Before me are 8 exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a bundle of documents prepared by the Crown which includes:

  1. The Notice of Committal;

  2. The Charge Certiticate;

  3. The Form 1;

  4. The section 166 certificate;

  5. The Agreed Facts;

  6. The offender’s criminal history; and

  7. The offender’s custodial history.

  1. Exhibit 2 is a COPS report on bail conditions.

  2. Exhibit 3 is a letter from the victim dated 26 February 2020.

  3. Exhibit 4 is a bundle of documents prepared by Ms Socorro on behalf of the offender, which includes:

  1. A psychologist report of forensic psychologist Megan Godbee dated 14 February 2020;

  2. A Justice Health Report by Clinic Nurse Consultant (mental health) Jodie Massey produced on 16 July 2019;

  3. South Coast Medical Service Aboriginal Corporation (AMS) Patient Summary from 21 January 2020 to 14 February 2020;

  4. AMS client engagement letter from Nathaniel Curtis dated 18 April 2019;

  5. A K10 assessment and referral to AMS from general practitioner Dr Samuel Baxter dated 12 July 2017;

  6. A Mental Health Act Form 1, and clinical notes from Nowra Acute Mental Health Team dated 11 December 2019; and

  7. Clinical notes and discharge summary from the emergency department of Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital dated 16 January 2019 and 30 March 2019.

  1. Exhibit 5 is a formal offer of entry…

Continue reading R v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brown [2020] NSWDC 70
Case
[2020] NSWDC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brown involved an Aboriginal defendant who had been found guilty of aggravated break and enter and commit. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account a range of mitigating factors. The defendant had a history of abuse and disadvantage, including auditory hallucinations, depression, and suicidal ideations. There were also significant issues related to childhood trauma, drug and alcohol addictions, and a prior criminal history.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's background and history in determining a sentence. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to consider the defendant's personal circumstances and history. The court also had to consider the potential effectiveness of different sentencing options, including a custodial sentence versus a non-custodial sentence.

The court ultimately determined that a full-time custodial order was appropriate in this case. The court found that the defendant's history of abuse and disadvantage, as well as his mental health issues and addictions, were significant mitigating factors. However, the court also found that these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence, which involved a violent break and enter. The court determined that a term of imprisonment was the most appropriate sentence, and made orders accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of term of imprisonment. For orders see [65]

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.