R v Dickson - [2020] NSWDC 894

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dickson [2020] NSWDC 894
Hearing dates: 12 March 2020
Date of orders: 12 March 2020
Decision date: 12 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [29].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Remorse — Rehabilitation
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Evans v R [2012] NSWCCA 59
Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307
R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Christopher Dickson (Offender)
Representation:
Mr B Ko, solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr A Wong, counsel for the offender

File Number(s): 2019/139806

Judgment

In the early hours of Sunday, 5 May 2019, Leonie Ingray was asleep in her home at Little Bay. She has two young children with the 30-year-old offender, Christopher Dickson. They were not living together at the time. He went into her house, and into her bedroom. She was awoken by him yelling at her. They began to argue about each other’s alleged infidelity. At the time he was holding a short, silver axe, holding it over her head and threatening her. He demanded to know where she was the night before, who she was with, and kept threatening her with the axe. She was very scared. She drove away and called triple-0. Police found her crying in her car. She wasn’t willing to make a statement about what happened. She was visibly upset during the time she was speaking to police, crying, and displaying visible signs of fear and shock. Mr Dickson was arrested soon after in a nearby backyard, when found by police dog. There was a provisional ADVO put in place and served on him while he was in custody following his arrest. One of the conditions of the ADVO was that he not approach her in any way. While in custody he added her phone number to his approved contact list, and between 17 May and 14 June he contacted and spoke to her on 42 separate occasions, which was in breach of the ADVO. The calls were audio recorded and in many of the calls the offender was angry and verbally abusive towards the victim. These agreed facts lead to him appearing for sentence having pleaded guilty at an early opportunity to,

An offence…

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 Dickson

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson [2020] NSWDC 894
Case: [2020] NSWDC 894
Decision Date: 12 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dickson involved the defendant, Dickson, who was sentenced for breaching the conditions of his conditional liberty. The appeal was heard by the court, which examined the sentence imposed and the factors considered in arriving at that sentence. The appeal raised several legal issues concerning the proper application of sentencing principles, particularly in relation to aggravating and mitigating factors, the purposes of sentencing, and the specific circumstances of the offender.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge correctly assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the overall sentence imposed. Aggravating factors included Dickson's history of previous convictions and his breach of conditional liberty, while mitigating factors encompassed his expressions of remorse, potential for rehabilitation, and his personal circumstances, including his age, drug addiction, and mental health issues. The court also considered the broader purposes of sentencing, such as deterrence, general principles, and the objective seriousness of the offence.

In reviewing the sentence, the court found that the trial judge appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors but erred in the application of sentencing principles, particularly in relation to the objective seriousness of the offence and the purposes of sentencing. The court held that while the sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years was not inappropriate, the trial judge did not adequately consider the objective seriousness of the offence and the purposes of sentencing. Consequently, the court substituted the sentence with an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of two years, affirming the original sentence but emphasizing the need for a more detailed justification in future sentencing decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [29].

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 Dickson [2020] NSWDC 894
Hearing dates:	12 March 2020
Date of orders:	12 March 2020
Decision date:	12 March 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years: at [29].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Remorse — Rehabilitation SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Evans v R [2012] NSWCCA 59 Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307 R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Christopher Dickson (Offender)
Representation:	Mr B Ko, solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr A Wong, counsel for the offender
File Number(s):	2019/139806