R v Daniel

Case [2022] NSWDC 729

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daniel [2022] NSWDC 729
Hearing dates: 14 October 2022
Date of orders: 14 October 2022
Decision date: 14 October 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 10 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Robbery armed with offensive weapon -

Assault with intent rob while armed with dangerous weapon – Specially aggravated B&E & commit serious indictable offence - Robbery while armed with dangerous weapon

SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – many serious offences over a short period- victim impact - early guilty plea- drug use- history of trauma – totality – avoiding a crushing sentence -special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

CrimesAct1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

FirearmsAct 1996

Cases Cited:

Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41

DPP C’th v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26

R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381

R v MJB [2014] NSWCCA 195

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

R v White [2022] NSWDC 265

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267

Stanton v R [2021] NSWCCA 123

Texts Cited:

Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497, 2011, BOCSAR

Category:Sentence
Parties: Michael John Daniel (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A Booker (for the offender)
Ms N Keay, Deputy State Crown Prosecutor

Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00105149, 2021/00264899

sentence – ex tempore revised

Introduction

  1. For most of his life Michael Daniel has lived a law-abiding life in the community. He is now 43. He has raised a family. He was able to maintain regular work. However, during the pandemic a number of significant stresses in his life led to him taking up the use of methylamphetamine. His drug use was, in part, a maladaptive coping mechanism for anxiety, that has some genesis in childhood trauma. Whatever the cause his methylamphetamine use was the catalyst for him committing, within a period of weeks, a series of very serious criminal offences. Those offences were crudely planned, opportunistic or not well thought out.…

Continue reading R v Daniel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Daniel [2022] NSWDC 729
Case
[2022] NSWDC 729
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Daniel involved the defendant being charged with multiple serious offences, including robbery while armed with an offensive weapon, assault with intent to rob while armed with a dangerous weapon, specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, and robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. The case was heard in the higher court, where the defendant had appealed his sentence. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for the defendant given the nature and number of the offences, the impact on the victims, the defendant’s early guilty plea, his drug use, his history of trauma, and the principle of totality in sentencing. The court was required to balance the need to deter future crime and protect the community with the aim of avoiding an unduly harsh sentence.

The court considered the totality principle, which requires that the aggregate sentence not be more than the sum of the individual sentences for each offence. It also took into account the defendant's early guilty plea, which typically results in a discount of 10-25%. The court recognised the defendant’s history of trauma and drug use as mitigating factors but emphasised the seriousness of the offences and their impact on the victims. The court determined that despite the mitigating factors, the defendant's actions warranted a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes committed. The court ultimately decided on an aggregate sentence of 10 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, which it deemed appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

The court’s decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors. It acknowledged the defendant’s personal circumstances but prioritised the need to protect the community and deter similar offences in the future. The court was mindful of avoiding a crushing sentence that would unduly impact the defendant's rehabilitation prospects. The aggregate sentence, along with the specified non-parole period, reflected a balanced approach that took into account both the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case. The final orders of the court were that the defendant would serve a total of 10 years and 6 months in prison, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 10 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years 6 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.