R v Daetz

Case [2021] NSWDC 365


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daetz [2021] NSWDC 365
Hearing dates: 05 February 2021
Date of orders: 05 February 2021
Decision date: 05 February 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

Term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 [2002] NSWCCA 518

Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58

Imbornone vThe Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144

Markarian v The Queen. (2005) 228 CLR 357

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39

Qutami v R [2001] NSWCCA 353

R v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jayantha Harold Daetz (Offender)
Representation:

Charlotte Wheatley (Crown)

Eugene Wasilinea (Counsel for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Cohort Lawyers
File Number(s): 2019/00146608 & 2018/00373608

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. Jayantha Daetz pleaded guilty upon arraignment when presented upon an indictment containing three counts.

  2. Count 1, contrary to s 61 Crimes Act 1900, alleges that he on 28 April 2019 at Kingsgrove in the State of New South Wales did assault Christopher Havern.

  3. Count 2, contrary to s 33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 alleged an offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In the alternative to that charge the Crown presented count 3, alleging that he on 10 May 2019 at Kingsgrove in the State of New South Wales recklessly wounded Christopher Havern contrary to s 35(4) Crimes Act 1900.

  4. A plea of guilty was accepted to count 3 in satisfaction of the indictment, however count 1 has been included in a Form 1 signed by the offender and on behalf of the Crown. He confirms he is guilty of that offence and confirms his wish that it be taken into account.

PENALTY

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of reckless wounding is imprisonment for seven years. There is a standard non-parole period for the purposes of Part 4 Div 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The period specified is three years.

PLEA OF GUILTY

  1. The offender pleaded guilty but not at the first opportunity that he had to do so and thus the discount that he is entitled to have for the utility of that plea is confined to 5% to be applied to the sentence that would have been otherwise imposed upon a synthesis of objective and subjective material that is before me.

  2. The Crown correctly points to s 21A(3)(k) Crimes (SentencingProcedure) Act 1999 and that this matter is an EAGP matter to which s 25D(2) of the Act applies.

  3. The plea was entered five days before the date of trial and there was no compliance with pre-trial notice requirements which required notice of the plea to be given by 23 September 2020;…

Continue reading R v Daetz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Daetz [2021] NSWDC 365
Case
[2021] NSWDC 365
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Daetz, was charged with inflicting a wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The victim was an acquaintance who was stabbed during an altercation. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Daetz was found guilty and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment for the offence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the defendant's background and culpability. The court had to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the severity of the assault and the significant injuries inflicted on the victim. The court also considered the defendant's background, including his previous criminal history and the circumstances leading up to the offence. Ultimately, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, was appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and the need to protect the community from further harm.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of 3 years 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years.

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.