R v Burgess

Case [2012] NSWDC 166

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Burgess [2012] NSWDC 166
Hearing dates:8 June 2012
Decision date: 08 June 2012
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years under s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Stealing firearm - Discharge firearm in public place - Breach of trust - Disordered thinking
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act
Mental Health Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Christopher James Burgess
Representation: Mr P Ramos
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mitchell Lawyers - Offender
File Number(s):2011/238243

Sentence

  1. HIS HONOUR: Christopher Burgess comes before this court in terribly sad circumstances. He is a member of the police force, although currently under suspension as a result of a number of matters, including the offence that brings him before the court today.

  1. He has pleaded guilty to stealing a firearm under s 154D(1) of the Crimes Act and asks that when I sentence him for that matter I take into account an offence of discharging a firearm in a public place.

  1. The offender committed those offences in July last year. Before that he had attempted self harm in May. Police intervened and the offender was scheduled into a mental health care facility by a police officer. He had received an authority to return to duty as a police officer in a restricted capacity.

  1. On 14 July last year the offender went to the police station where he had been working, gained access, through a number of means, to a firearm, a police issue Glock pistol. He also obtained access to ammunition to use with that pistol. He did this by getting keys and ultimately by using a pair of bolt cutters that he had taken from the police station's tactical equipment cupboard. Thereafter he sent a number of messages making it clear that he was intending to kill himself. He left the police station with another officer's pistol and ammunition.

  1. As a result of what had occurred a large scale emergency response was initiated. He was located in a public lookout in a State Forest. He was seen to be in possession of the pistol and drinking out of a bottle of Bourbon.

  1. Over the next fairly lengthy time he did a number of things to indicate that he was going to shoot himself with the pistol and twice discharged the firearm, once towards the valley and once into the air.

  1. Negotiations continued for some hours. The offender would continue to drink from the bottle of Bourbon, put the firearm to his head and wander around getting more intoxicated as he did so. At one stage he walked towards where the police were, the police called upon him to surrender the firearm, he said "I won't shoot youse, I want Kristy." He then returned back to his vehicle.

  1. Finally the offender went and sat on…

Continue reading R v Burgess

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Burgess [2012] NSWDC 166
Case
[2012] NSWDC 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Burgess was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Burgess, was charged with stealing a firearm and subsequently discharging it in a public place. The case involved a complex interplay of criminal law principles, focusing on sentencing for serious offences and the particular circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Burgess, considering the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing approach for Burgess's actions. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offences, which included stealing a firearm and discharging it in a public place, with the mitigating factors such as Burgess's breach of trust and disordered thinking. The court had to consider whether a custodial sentence was warranted or if an alternative, such as a bond under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, would be more appropriate. The court also examined the impact of Burgess's mental health on his capacity to form intent and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that while the offences were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that focused on rehabilitation and deterrence rather than solely on punishment. The court found that Burgess's disordered thinking and breach of trust were significant factors that influenced his actions. Given these considerations, the court determined that a bond to be of good behaviour for two years was the most suitable outcome. This decision aimed to provide Burgess with an opportunity to reform while ensuring public safety. The court's reasoning was based on the need to address both the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that Burgess be placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for two years under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing the severity of the crimes with the need for rehabilitation and consideration of the defendant's mental health and personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years under s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

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.