R v Brown, Haines & Ingray

Case [2022] NSWDC 130


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brown, Haines & Ingray [2022] NSWDC 130
Hearing dates: 15 October 2021, 17 December 2021
Date of orders: 27 January 2022
Decision date: 27 January 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:

Brown:

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Convicted. Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months commencing 30 December 2020 and expiring 29 June 2026

Non-Parole period - 4 years 1 month and 14 days

First eligible for parole on 12 February 2025

Haines:

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months commencing 12 June 2020 and expiring 11 December 2026

Non-Parole period - 4 years 7 months

First eligible for parole on 11 January 2025

Ingray:

Form 1A (JL Seq 90, 93, 73) taken into account in re Count 5 (JL 77)

Form 1B (JL Seq 55, 56, 17) taken into account in re Count 10 (JL 79)

Form 1C (JL Seq 89, 92) taken into account in re Count 21 (JL 84)

Form 1D (JL Seq 23, 29) taken into account in re Count 26 (JL 85)

s166 matters (JL Seq 41, 42, 43, 44) : Convicted pursuant to s10A – no further action taken.

Special circumstances found as per remarks on sentence.

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 11 years & 6 months commencing 1 April 2019 expiring 30 September 2030

Non-Parole period - 8 years

First eligible for parole on 32 March 2027

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL – sentence – 3 co-offenders - joint criminal enterprise - multiple offences of robbery etc - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence, people there - aggravated break, enter and steal - enter building/land with intent to commit indictable offence -steal motor vehicle - assault with intent to rob in company - be carried in a conveyance taken without consent of the owner – extent to which offences planned or opportunistic -roles of offenders – further offenders sentenced separately – parity - subjective matters

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37

Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58.

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28

R v Hoschke (2001) NSWCCA 317

R v Huynh [2003] NSWCCA 239

R v McVittie [2002] NSWCCA 344

R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

R v Moffatt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Brown, Aaron
Haines, Tony
Ingray, Wayne
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown: Mr A Metcalfe
Brown: Mr G Wendler
Haines: Mr M Juhasz
Ingray: Ms M Fernando

Solicitors:
Crown: Ms G Alexander
Brown:Mr Y Hassan
Haines: Mr M Kiang
Ingray: Mr N Felton
File Number(s): Brown: 2019/00049941, 2019/00082524
Haines: 2019/00167172 Ingray: 2019/00050393 +ors

Judgment

OVERVIEW

  1. Each of the offenders is to be sentenced for multiple offences, having been found guilty by a jury at…

Continue reading R v Brown, Haines & Ingray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brown, Haines & Ingray [2022] NSWDC 130
Case
[2022] NSWDC 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Three individuals, Brown, Haines and Ingray, appeared before the court to answer for a series of serious criminal charges including robbery, aggravated break and enter, and assault with intent to rob. The case involved a joint criminal enterprise with multiple offences committed together. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the roles they played in the crimes, the level of planning involved, and the need for parity with other offenders.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the extent to which the offences were planned or opportunistic, the roles and contributions of each defendant in the commission of the crimes, and the need to ensure parity in sentencing with other offenders who were involved in similar crimes but had not yet been sentenced. The court also had to consider the special circumstances of each offender, including their criminal history and any mitigating factors.

The court found that the offences were largely opportunistic, with varying levels of planning and participation from each defendant. Brown was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years 1 month and 14 days. Haines received a sentence of 6 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years 7 months. Ingray was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 11 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The court took into account special circumstances for Ingray, including his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. The sentences were designed to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, the roles of the offenders, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Brown:

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Convicted. Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years 6 months commencing 30 December 2020 and expiring 29 June 2026

Non-Parole period - 4 years 1 month and 14 days

First eligible for parole on 12 February 2025

Haines:

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months commencing 12 June 2020 and expiring 11 December 2026

Non-Parole period - 4 years 7 months

First eligible for parole on 11 January 2025

Ingray:

Form 1A (JL Seq 90, 93, 73) taken into account in re Count 5 (JL 77)

Form 1B (JL Seq 55, 56, 17) taken into account in re Count 10 (JL 79)

Form 1C (JL Seq 89, 92) taken into account in re Count 21 (JL 84)

Form 1D (JL Seq 23, 29) taken into account in re Count 26 (JL 85)

s166 matters (JL Seq 41, 42, 43, 44) : Convicted pursuant to s10A – no further action taken.

Special circumstances found as per remarks on sentence.

Indicative sentences: see attached schedule

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 11 years & 6 months commencing 1 April 2019 expiring 30 September 2030

Non-Parole period - 8 years

First eligible for parole on 32 March 2027

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.