District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Collins [2020] NSWDC 276 Hearing dates: 08 May 2020 Date of orders: 05 June 2020 Decision date: 05 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 66
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – severity appeal – indecent assault and domestic violence offences – whether Intensive Correction Order should be substituted as punishment for full-time custody Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61, 61L, 61M
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 11, 17
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 66Cases Cited: Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129
Peiris v R [2014] NSWCCA 58Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr NJ CollinsRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms T Evers for the appellant
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Riviere Law for the appellant
File Number(s): 2018/332140 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Local Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
- Unreported
- Date of Decision:
- 19 November 2019
- Before:
- Magistrate AW Railton
- File Number(s):
- 2018/332140
Judgment
INTRODUCTION
-
This is an appeal on a sentence imposed in the Gosford Local Court (Magistrate Railton) on 19 November 2019 in respect to which the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 months with a non-parole period of 12 months, expiring on 18 November 2020. The appellant sought and obtained bail pending this appeal and so has not entered into custody.
-
The sentence was imposed in respect of a guilty plea on the offence that, contrary to s 61L of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW), on 27 October 2018, at Copacabana, the appellant assaulted Kristy Rochester and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on her.
-
The maximum penalty for this offence, when tried on indictment, is 5 years’ imprisonment. When tried summarily, as it was here, the maximum punishment is 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,500.
-
The appellant requested that the learned Magistrate take into account two additional offences on a Form 1, they being, that on the same date and in the same place, the appellant:
intimidated Kristy Rochester with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm, contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act2007 (NSW); and
assaulted Kristy Rochester, contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).
-
This appeal is brought pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001 (NSW). The appeal is by way of rehearing on the basis of the evidence before the Local Court, although fresh evidence may be given (s 17). The Court is required to engage in a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion on the evidence admitted on the hearing of the appeal.…
Continue reading R v Collins
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Collins [2020] NSWDC 276
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate form of punishment for the appellant's crimes. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the original sentence of imprisonment was proportionate to the offences committed and whether an Intensive Correction Order would be a more suitable form of punishment. The appellant argued that the original sentence was unduly harsh and that an Intensive Correction Order would serve both the interests of justice and public safety.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal found that while the appellant's crimes were serious, the original sentence was not manifestly excessive. However, the court acknowledged that an Intensive Correction Order could be a more effective form of punishment for Collins, considering his personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of imprisonment with an Intensive Correction Order. The Court also provided detailed reasons for this substitution, focusing on the potential for rehabilitation and the lesser impact on the appellant’s employment prospects.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 66
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.