R v Darcy - [2020] NSWDC 824

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Darcy [2020] NSWDC 824
Hearing dates: 02 & 18 November 2020
Date of orders: 18 November 2020
Decision date: 18 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain property by deception
CRIME — Property offences — Larceny
CRIME — Violent offences — Resist/Hinder police officer in execution of duty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Drug Court
SENTENCING — Penalties — Drug Court — Eligibility for program
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Court Act 1988
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ethan Darcy (Offender)
Representation:
Kate Bombell (Crown)
Steven Doupe (counsel for the Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Criminal Defence Lawyers

File Number(s): 2018/00389554, 2019/00070480, 2019/00076821, 2018/00081466, 2019/00114105, 2019/00120339, 2019/00189659 & 2019/00192608

REVISED JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Ethan Darcy appeared for sentence in the District Court at Sydney on 2 November 2020 upon an array of charges to which he pleaded guilty in the Local Court. In addition there is an array of offences to be taken into account attached to a good number of the offences upon which sentences are to be imposed. All of these are set forth in their respective Form 1 documents signed by the offender and on behalf of the Crown.
The offences in this Court are the subject of eight separate files reflecting that their prosecution at least in this Court commenced on progressive occasions. The offences are so extensive in their number that it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings until November 10, 2020 to allow me the opportunity assimilate them and the circumstances in which they were committed. As matters progressed however it was necessary to adjourn the proceedings again until today predominantly because of trials in which I am presiding currently, but also because there was some error in the assembly of the material which was discovered upon close analysis of the various offences and the inter-relation with the offences on the…

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 Darcy

Details

AGLC: R v Darcy [2020] NSWDC 824
Case: [2020] NSWDC 824
Decision Date: 18 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Darcy involved the defendant, Darcy, who was charged with multiple offences including possession of a prohibited drug, fraud, larceny, and resisting or hindering a police officer in the execution of their duty. The matter was heard in the court, which exercised its jurisdiction over criminal matters under Australian law. Darcy faced a series of charges that needed to be adjudicated, each with their own legal implications and potential penalties.

The legal issues before the court encompassed various aspects of criminal law, including the interpretation and application of drug, fraud, property, and police resistance offences. The court was required to determine the appropriate penalties for each offence, taking into account the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to drug court proceedings. The court also had to consider Darcy's eligibility for a specific drug court program, as well as the principles of aggregation, accumulation, concurrency, and totality of sentences for multiple offences. Other relevant factors included the maximum penalties applicable, the purposes of sentencing, and subjective considerations such as the offender's age, drug addiction, and any special circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed each charge and the applicable legal standards. It assessed the evidence presented and the arguments made by both the prosecution and defence. The court considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the appropriate aggregate sentence. It also evaluated the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, alongside the subjective factors relevant to Darcy's personal circumstances. Ultimately, the court determined an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months.

The court's orders reflected its comprehensive assessment of the charges, the principles of sentencing, and the specific considerations applicable to Darcy's case. The final orders mandated an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. This sentence was the culmination of the court's detailed analysis of the legal issues and the relevant factors in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 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 Darcy [2020] NSWDC 824
Hearing dates:	02 & 18 November 2020
Date of orders:	18 November 2020
Decision date:	18 November 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 6 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain property by deception CRIME — Property offences — Larceny CRIME — Violent offences — Resist/Hinder police officer in execution of duty SENTENCING — Penalties — Drug Court SENTENCING — Penalties — Drug Court — Eligibility for program SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Accumulation, concurrency and totality SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Court Act 1988 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General’s application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Ethan Darcy (Offender)
Representation:	Kate Bombell (Crown) Steven Doupe (counsel for the Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Criminal Defence Lawyers
File Number(s):	2018/00389554, 2019/00070480, 2019/00076821, 2018/00081466, 2019/00114105, 2019/00120339, 2019/00189659 & 2019/00192608