R v Deborah Grant - [2015] NSWSC 759

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Deborah Grant [2015] NSWSC 759
Hearing dates: 15 June 2015
Date of orders: 15 June 2015
Decision date: 15 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [31]-[33]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Breach of bond – Where offender sentenced to 12 months imprisonment – Where sentence immediately suspended – Where offender placed on bond conditional to be of good behaviour – Where offender subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of assault committed in the period of the bond – Where such offence constituted a breach of the bond – Circumstances mandating revocation of bond – Sentence of imprisonment appropriate – Where both parties agreed that it was open to order that any sentence of imprisonment be served by way of home detention subject to the offender’s suitability – Order made referring offender for assessment as to suitability for home detention
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Burrow [2004] NSWSC 433
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cooke & Anor [2007] NSWCA 32; (2007) 168 A Crim R 319
Grant v The Local Court of New South Wales & Anor [2015] NSWSC 356
R v Grant [2012] NSWSC 1491
R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Deborah Grant - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J McLennan SC - Crown
Mr E Ozen - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Randall Legal - Offender

File Number(s): 2011/3545

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (rEVISED)

The offender appears before me having been issued with a call-up notice pursuant to s 98(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Act”). That notice stems from the alleged breach of a bond imposed upon the offender by me on 7 December 2012. The background to the breach can be summarised as follows.
On 27 July 2012 the offender pleaded guilty before me to an offence contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900. That offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. I do not propose, in the circumstances, to canvass the facts of that offending. They are set out in full in my previous judgment: R v Grant [2012] NSWSC 1491 at [6] – [18] inclusive.
On 7 December 2012 I sentenced the offender to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 7 December 2012 and expiring on 6 December 2013. I concluded that the sentence should be wholly suspended, and I immediately released the offender from custody on a bond pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act. That bond was subject to a number of conditions. For present purposes only one of those conditions is relevant, namely that which required the offender to be of good behaviour.
On 23 November 2013 the offender pleaded guilty before the Casino Local Court to a charge of assault which occurred on 7 October 2013. Although 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 Deborah Grant

Details

AGLC: R v Deborah Grant [2015] NSWSC 759
Case: [2015] NSWSC 759
Decision Date: 15 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Deborah Grant involved a criminal matter where the defendant, Deborah Grant, was initially sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which was immediately suspended. She was placed on a bond conditional to her being of good behaviour. Subsequently, Grant pleaded guilty to a charge of assault committed during the period of the bond, which constituted a breach of the bond. The issue for the court was whether the breach of the bond warranted its revocation and if a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the nature and severity of the breach of the bond, considering it a serious offence that undermined the conditions set for her initial sentence. The court also took into account the agreement between the parties that it was open to order that any sentence of imprisonment be served by way of home detention, subject to the offender’s suitability. The court held that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, but it could be served by way of home detention if Grant was deemed suitable for this alternative. The court ordered that Grant be referred for assessment as to her suitability for home detention.

Given the breach of the bond and the seriousness of the offence, the court found it appropriate to revoke the bond and impose a sentence of imprisonment. However, due to the agreement of both parties, the court opted for a sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of home detention, pending the outcome of the assessment for suitability. The final order was that Deborah Grant be referred for assessment to determine her suitability for serving her sentence of imprisonment by way of home detention.

Orders