R v Collins

Case [2020] NSWDC 276


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, 66
Cases 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 58
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr NJ Collins
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms T Evers for the appellant

  Solicitors:
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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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:

  1. 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

  2. assaulted Kristy Rochester, contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Collins [2020] NSWDC 276
Case
[2020] NSWDC 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collins involved the appellant, Collins, who appealed against the severity of his sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. Collins had been found guilty of indecent assault and domestic violence offences. His original sentence included imprisonment terms which he argued were excessively severe. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether a different form of punishment, specifically an Intensive Correction Order, would be more appropriate.

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.