R v Coe - [2019] NSWDC 236

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Coe [2019] NSWDC 236
Hearing dates: 03 May 2019
Decision date: 03 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months. Non parole period of 3 years 6 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm – penalty for conspiracy – Form 1 matters – criminal group - supply prohibited drugs.
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea – background of disadvantage and social deprivation – most of life spent in gaol – no positive lessons from gaol – prospects not good – special circumstances but release must be earned.
CRIME – Crime gangs – not wearing colours – constant surveillance – coded conversations – gaol phone calls recorded – codes deciphered – continued gang membership – directions of gang leader – efforts to obtain firearms and ammunition - duress.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270.
Texts Cited: “Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence" Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria, 2011
Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category: Sentence
Parties: Andrew Coe (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Doosey (for the Offender)
Solicitors:
Johnston Legal (for the Offender)
Ms N Oldender (Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2018/00095236

Judgment – ex tempore revised

There are members of our community who for various reasons do not see themselves as part of the community; some revel in being outlaws. Some flaunt their outlaw status by their behaviour and what they wear. Many commit offences against the community and against each other. Considerable resources are deployed by the New South Wales police to investigate, combat and ultimately attempt to prevent crimes being committed by such outlaw groups.
In 2017 a Police State Crime Command Group Squad investigation, code named Rednap, was investigating hostilities between the Finks outlaw motorcycle group and the Illawarra chapter of a group, called Brothers for Life. I am told that Brothers for Life members, although purporting to adopt the outlaw motorcycle group lifestyle do not in fact ride motorcycles.
The police complain, in the facts document before me, that some of these outlaw groups are reluctant to wear clothing which identified them as members of the group and that they did so to prevent “unnecessary interaction with law enforcement”. There has been a lot of talk about banning ‘colours’ but here it appears that the only lawful thing some of the group did was go about in ordinary clothing. I am not quite sure this was simply to avoid police detection. Regardless of what they thought they were doing, members of the Wollongong chapter of Brothers for Life were, as this case…

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 Coe

Details

AGLC: R v Coe [2019] NSWDC 236
Case: [2019] NSWDC 236
Decision Date: 03 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Coe, was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was asked to review the sentence imposed on Coe. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence, considering factors such as Coe's background, his early guilty plea, and the duration of his incarceration. The court had to assess whether the original sentence was appropriate, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the correct weight to give to various factors in sentencing. These included Coe's disadvantaged background, his lengthy period spent in prison, and his continued involvement in criminal activities despite being incarcerated. The court was also tasked with evaluating the impact of Coe's early guilty plea and his prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Coe's actions, such as attempting to procure firearms and ammunition, warranted a more severe penalty.

The court acknowledged Coe's disadvantaged background and lengthy incarceration but emphasised the need to balance this with the seriousness of his criminal activities. It noted that while Coe had pleaded guilty early, his continued involvement in criminal conduct, including efforts to obtain firearms, demonstrated a persistent criminal mindset. The court ultimately decided that the original sentence was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors. The non-parole period was set at 3 years and 6 months, reflecting the gravity of Coe's crimes and the need for public protection.

The court ordered that Coe be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months. This decision recognised the need for Coe to serve a significant period in prison while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months. Non parole period of 3 years 6 months.

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 Coe [2019] NSWDC 236
Hearing dates:	03 May 2019
Decision date:	03 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months. Non parole period of 3 years 6 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm – penalty for conspiracy – Form 1 matters – criminal group - supply prohibited drugs. SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea – background of disadvantage and social deprivation – most of life spent in gaol – no positive lessons from gaol – prospects not good – special circumstances but release must be earned. CRIME – Crime gangs – not wearing colours – constant surveillance – coded conversations – gaol phone calls recorded – codes deciphered – continued gang membership – directions of gang leader – efforts to obtain firearms and ammunition - duress.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Olbrich v The Queen [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270.
Texts Cited:	“Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence" Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria, 2011 Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Andrew Coe (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C Doosey (for the Offender) Solicitors: Johnston Legal (for the Offender) Ms N Oldender (Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00095236