R v Copeland

Case [2022] NSWDC 545

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Copeland [2022] NSWDC 545
Hearing dates: 23 September 2022
Date of orders: 28 October 2022
Decision date: 28 October 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:

(1) The offender is convicted.

(2) The offender is sentenced to fixed term of 6 months commencing on 26 April 2021 and expiring on 25 October 2021.

(3) Taking into account time served, the offender is entitled to immediate release.

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Bugmy principles

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 ss 59(1), 94(b)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 ss 3A, 5, 21A, 25D

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

R v Heizzinen [2006] NSWCCA 50

Texts Cited:

The Bugmy Bar Book

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex
Ms Katreana May Copeland
Representation: Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)
File Number(s): 2021/115941
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

JUDGMENT

Remarks on sentence

  1. The offender appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court on 18 November 2021 and pleaded guilty to one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years imprisonment.

  2. The plea of guilty was adhered to in the Local Court on 18 November 2021. Accordingly, pursuant to s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.

  3. In determining the appropriate sentence, I acknowledge that I am involved in a one step process in which it is necessary to have regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances as are known to the Court including the facts surrounding the commission of the offences, those matters affecting its relative seriousness and the offender's subjective circumstances.

  4. Admitted on behalf of the Crown was the following:

  1. Amended Charge Certificate (Ex C1)

  2. Signed Agreed Facts (Ex C2)

  3. Criminal History (Ex C3)

  4. Custodial History (Ex C4)

  5. CCTV Footage of Offence (Ex C5)

  1. Admitted on behalf of the offender was the following:

  1. Psychological report of Vanessa Edwige dated 12 February 2022 (Ex O1)

  2. The Bar Book Project – Childhood Exposure to Domestic and Family Violence (Ex O2)

  3. The Bar Book Project – Childhood Sexual Abuse Executive Summary (Ex O3)

Agreed facts

  1. On 26 April 2021, the offender approached the victim and James Boney in a room of the Injecting Centre located in Kings Cross. The offender was known to Mr Boney but was not known to the victim, although, the victim recalls having seen the offender once before. The offender asked the victim words to the effect of “Hey sister, can you give me some”, to which the victim responded, “I’ll talk to you in the next room”.

  2. The victim then started making a mix, with Mr Boney holding the victim’s heroin. At this point, an argument commenced between the victim and Mr Boney. The Centre staff subsequently…

Continue reading R v Copeland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Copeland [2022] NSWDC 545
Case
[2022] NSWDC 545
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Copeland, the defendant faced charges related to an incident of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court where the defendant's guilt was not in contention, focusing instead on the appropriate sentencing. The presiding judge was tasked with determining a suitable punishment, considering the nature of the offence and relevant legal principles, including those outlined in the Bugmy principles.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the severity of the offence and the Bugmy principles. These principles, derived from the High Court's decision in Bugmy v The Queen, emphasise the importance of considering the cultural background and circumstances of the offender in the sentencing process. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of restorative justice and the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the facts of the case, including the nature of the assault and its impact on the victim. The court also examined the Bugmy principles, recognising the importance of cultural context in sentencing. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a fixed term of imprisonment of six months was appropriate, with the sentence to commence on 26 April 2021 and expire on 25 October 2021. Given that the defendant had already served time in custody, the court ruled that he was entitled to immediate release.

In conclusion, the court's judgment reflects a balanced approach to sentencing, incorporating both punitive and rehabilitative considerations. The Bugmy principles were given due regard, highlighting the importance of cultural context in the sentencing process. The final orders include the conviction of the defendant, a six-month fixed term of imprisonment, and immediate release due to time served.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The offender is convicted.

(2) The offender is sentenced to fixed term of 6 months commencing on 26 April 2021 and expiring on 25 October 2021.

(3) Taking into account time served, the offender is entitled to immediate release.

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.