R v Cormack - [2020] NSWDC 128

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cormack [2020] NSWDC 128
Hearing dates: 25 February 2020
Decision date: 25 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years and seven months. Non-parole period of one year and seven months

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Multiple offences - assault with intent to take motor vehicle - aggravated enter with intent - intimidation - Form 1 matters - s 166 Criminal Procedure Act matters.
SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – late guilty plea - - Form 1 - bizarre but intimidatory behaviour by the offender towards victim - offender not himself - offender’s mental condition - drug use - considerable help needed to adjust to normal community life - special circumstances - accumulation on other sentences - need to preserve ratio between total effective sentence and total non-parole period - no need for rigid percentage deductions when reducing sentences for guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) 2007
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Jason Cormack, unreported NSWDC, 4 May 2018, Haesler SC DCJ
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Jason Scott Cormack (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2018/00198285

SENTENCE - Ex tempore revised

There was a time when judges simply gave a very brief outline of what was done by an offender and pronounced a sentence but in the modern world, courts are required, rather than giving sentencing remarks, to give a sentence judgment. The need to give judgement requires I set out how I have synthesised all of the material before the Court, including the agreed facts and the material produced for and on behalf of the offender. It can sometimes take some time as I have to show that I have properly taken into account all of the matters put before me including submissions. Those submissions were carefully made, both orally and in written form, byMs Cabrera, solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr Fraser, Public Defender, for Jason Scott Cormack, the offender for sentence.
I have received the Crown sentence summary, agreed facts, antecedents and gaol record and defence exhibit 1, which has ten indexed reports and references.
Every sentencing exercise should commence with an assessment of what was done and a reflection of the Court’s view of its objective seriousness. Every sentencing exercise must also take into account the case put by the offender.
Here Mr Boyce, Cormack’s victim was subject to a number of personal indignities and assaults. Where a fellow citizen has been repeatedly subject to violence, the Court must, by the imposition of an appropriate sentence, attempt to vindicate the dignity of that victim of violence.…

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 Cormack

Details

AGLC: R v Cormack [2020] NSWDC 128
Case: [2020] NSWDC 128
Decision Date: 25 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of an individual, Cormack, for a series of offences. The charges included assault with intent to take a motor vehicle, aggravated enter with intent, and intimidation. The matter was heard in the relevant court, where the sentencing for these multiple offences was the central issue. The court had to consider various factors, including the defendant's late guilty plea, his bizarre but intimidating behaviour towards the victim, his mental condition, drug use, and the need for considerable assistance to reintegrate into normal community life. Additionally, the court had to take into account the special circumstances of the case and the accumulation of other sentences, ensuring that the total effective sentence was proportionate to the total non-parole period. The court's decision was influenced by the need to preserve the ratio between these two elements and the recognition that rigid percentage deductions for a guilty plea were not always necessary.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, Cormack, who was found guilty of multiple serious offences. The court had to weigh the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's mental health issues and drug use, against the severity of his actions. The court also had to consider the cumulative effect of the sentences on the defendant's overall punishment and ensure that the sentence was just and proportionate. Furthermore, the court needed to balance the defendant's late guilty plea with the need to maintain a consistent approach to sentencing. The court's reasoning was influenced by the need to consider the total effective sentence and the total non-parole period, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the various factors involved in the case. The court acknowledged the defendant's mental health issues and drug use but also recognised the seriousness of his actions, which were described as bizarre but intimidatory. The court also took into account the defendant's late guilty plea and the need for considerable assistance to help him adjust to normal community life. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was an aggregate of three years and seven months, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. This decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the need to ensure a just and proportionate outcome.

The final orders of the court were for an aggregate sentence of three years and seven months, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. This sentence reflected the court's careful consideration of the defendant's mental health issues, drug use, and the severity of his actions, as well as the need to maintain a consistent approach to sentencing. The court's decision ensured that the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed and took into account the special circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years and seven months. Non-parole period of one year and seven 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 Cormack [2020] NSWDC 128
Hearing dates:	25 February 2020
Decision date:	25 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years and seven months. Non-parole period of one year and seven months
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Multiple offences - assault with intent to take motor vehicle - aggravated enter with intent - intimidation - Form 1 matters - s 166 Criminal Procedure Act matters. SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence – late guilty plea - - Form 1 - bizarre but intimidatory behaviour by the offender towards victim - offender not himself - offender’s mental condition - drug use - considerable help needed to adjust to normal community life - special circumstances - accumulation on other sentences - need to preserve ratio between total effective sentence and total non-parole period - no need for rigid percentage deductions when reducing sentences for guilty plea
Legislation Cited:	Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) 2007 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Jason Cormack, unreported NSWDC, 4 May 2018, Haesler SC DCJ Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jason Scott Cormack (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00198285