R v Darcy - [2020] NSWDC 166

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DARCY [2020] NSWDC 166
Hearing dates: 1 May 2020
Date of orders: 08 May 2020
Decision date: 08 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced – see paragraphs [64] to [69]

Catchwords: CRIMES – sentence - Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence - Aggravated Enter Dwelling with Intent to Steal – Goods in Custody – Larceny of a Motor Vehicle – Form 1 – lengthy criminal history – Bugmy factors
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
R v Despotovski [2010] NSWDC 110
Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141
Hart v R [2014] NSWCCA 172
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Crown)
William Warren DARCY (offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms J Dawson (for DPP)
Mr J Murray (Aboriginal Legal Service, for the offender)

File Number(s): 2017/139257
Publication restriction: No

sentence

The offender William Darcy was committed for sentence from the Young Local Court on 22 May 2018, however the offender failed to appear on 19 October 2018 at the Wagga Wagga District Court and a bench warrant was issued on that date. The offender was arrested in respect of that warrant on 27 November 2019 and he has been in custody since that date although he is also serving a sentence imposed in the Local Court.
The offender appears for sentence in respect of two substantive matters, namely a charge of Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and a charge of Aggravated Enter Dwelling with Intent to Steal, contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act. The circumstance of aggravation relied in both matters is that the offender was in company.
In addition to those substantive charges the offender asks that in respect of the charge contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act when passing sentence the court takes into account two matters on a Form 1 document. One matter is a charge of what is commonly or shortly known as Goods in Custody contrary to s 527C(1)(c) of the Crimes Act. The other is a charge of Larceny of a Motor Vehicle contrary to s 154F of the Crimes Act. The vehicle was stolen from the garage that was broken into.
In dealing with the charge contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 document I will need to give proper regard to the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37…

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 166
Case: [2020] NSWDC 166
Decision Date: 08 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Darcy, who was charged with various offences including aggravated break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, aggravated enter dwelling with intent to steal, goods in custody, larceny of a motor vehicle, and charges relating to Form 1. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Darcy had a lengthy criminal history which was taken into account during sentencing.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was the appropriate sentence for Darcy, considering his extensive criminal history and the nature of the current offences. The court was required to assess whether the Bugmy factors, which relate to the impact of Indigenous status on sentencing, should be applied. The court also needed to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

The court began by acknowledging Darcy's lengthy criminal history, noting that it had a significant impact on his culpability. The court examined each offence in detail, considering the severity and circumstances of the break and enter, the intent behind the offences, and the impact on the victims. The court also considered the Bugmy factors, recognising the disproportionate representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system and the socio-economic disadvantages faced by Darcy. After weighing all the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that a sentence within the range of community-based orders would be appropriate, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that balanced these considerations.

The court ordered Darcy to be sentenced as per the details provided in paragraphs [64] to [69] of the judgment, which outlined the specific terms of the sentence, including any community service, supervision, or other conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced – see paragraphs [64] to [69]

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 166
Hearing dates:	1 May 2020
Date of orders:	08 May 2020
Decision date:	08 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced – see paragraphs [64] to [69]
Catchwords:	CRIMES – sentence - Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence - Aggravated Enter Dwelling with Intent to Steal – Goods in Custody – Larceny of a Motor Vehicle – Form 1 – lengthy criminal history – Bugmy factors
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 R v Despotovski [2010] NSWDC 110 Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141 Hart v R [2014] NSWCCA 172 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Crown) William Warren DARCY (offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms J Dawson (for DPP) Mr J Murray (Aboriginal Legal Service, for the offender)
File Number(s):	2017/139257
Publication restriction:	No