Sentence – Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence – Steal Firearms – Use Offensive Weapon to Avoid Apprehension – issue of seriousness of s 33B charge – Whether “Bugmy” enlivened – totality – commencement date of sentence
Counsel: Mr A Dixon for the Crown Mr A Metcalfe for the Offender
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions De Novo Legal
File Number(s):
2022/305959, 2022/375527
Publication restriction:
No
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
The offender appeared before a Magistrate on 29 May 2024 and pleaded guilty to four charges, namely:
H92173118
Sequence 1: Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence (larceny) contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900.
Sequence 2: Steal Firearm contrary to s 154D(1) of the Crimes Act
H91519466
Sequence 1: Use Offensive Weapon to Avoid Apprehension, contrary to s 33B of the Crimes Act; and
Sequence 2: Possess Shortened Firearm, contrary to s 62(1)(b) of the Firearms Act, 1996.
The pleas of guilty were adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 19 March 2025. Accordingly, the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.
The maximum penalties for the offence of Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence is one of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years. The maximum penalty for the offence of Steal Firearm is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for use Offensive Weapon to Avoid Apprehension is 12 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of Possess Shortened Firearm without Authority is 10 years imprisonment.
When sentencing the offender for the Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence the offender asks that I take into account one charge of Be Carried in Conveyance Without the Consent of the Owner, which is on a Form 1 document. I will need to apply the principles enunciated by the Court of…
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 COLLINS
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v COLLINS [2025] NSWDC 107
Case
[2025] NSWDC 107
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Collins, the defendant was found guilty of various serious charges including aggravated break and enter, commit serious indictable offence, steal firearms, and using an offensive weapon to avoid apprehension. The case was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences. The central issue before the court was the appropriate starting point for the sentence, particularly in light of the defendant's prior criminal history and the seriousness of the current charges.
The court was required to consider the totality principle, which dictates that a sentence should not be excessive and should account for all the offences committed by the defendant. The prosecution argued that the defendant's actions warranted a high starting point, given the severity of the crimes and the use of an offensive weapon. The defence, on the other hand, submitted that the starting point should be lower, considering the defendant's prior good record and the fact that he had already spent a considerable time in custody awaiting trial. The court had to balance these considerations, taking into account the principles outlined in Bugmy v R, which emphasised the need for a fair and proportionate sentence.
After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was 12 years' imprisonment. The court found that the totality principle did not require a lower starting point despite the defendant's otherwise good prior record. The court emphasised the seriousness of the current offences and the need to protect the community. The court also considered the commencement date of the sentence, ensuring it aligned with the principles of justice and proportionality. The final orders of the court reflect this balanced approach, setting the starting point for the defendant's sentence at 12 years' imprisonment.