R v Charters

Case [2021] NSWDC 425


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Charters [2021] NSWDC 425
Hearing dates: 8 July 2021
Date of orders: 20 August 2021
Decision date: 20 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [122] – [124]

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing following jury trial – robbery armed with a dangerous weapon – impersonating police office and purporting to exercise powers – parity – youth – addiction – rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 97(2), 546D(2)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A(2), 21A(3), 21A(5AA)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27

Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246

Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244

Mustafa v R [2021] NSWCCA 164

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394

R v Valentini (1989) 46 ACR 23

Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309

Texts Cited:

None

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Kelsey Charters (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Chris Allison (Solicitor-Advocate) (ODPP)
Evan James (Offender)

Solicitors:
ODPP Solicitor (ODPP)
Ljupka Subeska (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/271503
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Kelsey Charters was born on 2 March 1996 and is now 25 years of age. She commenced using drugs of addiction at age 15. In 2018 she met her co-offender Jacob Perger. She was impacted by both these negative influences at the time she participated in the subject offending on 30 January 2019, then just 22 years of age.

  2. The Offender appears for sentence after being found guilty by a jury in respect of the following 2 offences:

  1. impersonating a police officer and purporting to exercise powers of a police officer with intent to deceive, in breach of s 546D(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment; and

  2. robbery armed with a dangerous weapon, in breach of s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.

  1. The maximum penalties applicable to these offences are guideposts for a sentencing judge, and reflect the seriousness with which the community, through Parliament, views the offending.

Procedural History

  1. The offending occurred in the early hours of 30 January 2019 at Beverly Hills, in New South Wales.

  2. The Offender was arrested on 5 February 2020, and was bail refused for 5 days, until 10 February 2020. At this time she was granted bail, and remained on bail until the finding of guilt on 19 April 2021.

  3. The trial by jury commenced on 12 April 2021 in Sydney, and concluded on 19 April 2021, at which time the jury returned with a guilty verdict on both counts. The Offender’s bail was revoked upon this finding, and she has been in custody since that time. As at today, the Offender has spent 129 days in custody referrable to this offending.

  4. These offences were committed while the Offender was on bail for previous charges, being H ending 890,…

Continue reading R v Charters

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Charters [2021] NSWDC 425
Case
[2021] NSWDC 425
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Charters involved a defendant charged with robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, as well as impersonating a police officer and purporting to exercise police powers. The defendant, a young person struggling with addiction, appeared before the court for sentencing following a jury trial. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict, and the sentencing hearing focused on determining the appropriate punishment considering the defendant's age, background, and the gravity of the crime committed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's youth, and his struggle with addiction. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and the rehabilitation of the defendant against the severity of the crime committed. In assessing parity, the court considered other cases of similar nature to ensure the sentence was fair and proportionate.

The court found that despite the defendant's youth and personal struggles, the gravity of the crime warranted a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and the importance of holding the defendant accountable for his actions. Ultimately, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, detailing the specific orders and conditions at [122] to [124]. The court concluded that this sentence would provide the necessary deterrence while also offering the defendant an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [122] – [124]

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.