R v Dunbar - [2010] NSWDC 94

CITATION: R v DUNBAR [2010] NSWDC 94
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 22 April 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 April 2010

JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Break, enter and steal in company - Need for Methadone - Offence significantly below middle of range of objective seriousness

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES: The Crown
Noel Raymond Dunbar

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/203727

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Noel Dunbar is a man who should by this age be growing out of his repeated offending.

2 He was born in Sydney and brought up in Redfern. The circumstances of his upbringing were such that the decision as to whether he should commit offences or not was made with no real favourable role models to assist him. What he saw as he grew up was drinking and fighting. He did not even go to high school, he says that it was his decision but there was no-one around apparently to make him.

3 From the age of twelve he started drinking which progressed to the use of drugs. His criminal history is replete with offences committed presumably in order to obtain money for drugs.

4 He was released from custody on parole and instead of reverting back to illegal drug use, he was maintaining himself on methadone for some time. Unfortunately, however, the chemist who supplied him with methadone banned him from entering the premises. The offender said this was because he has tattoos on his arms and legs and they were scaring the young female staff members. Whatever the reason, the consequence was that the offender could not obtain methadone. He was hanging out for three or four days until, as a spur of the moment decision, he took a concrete drainage cover, smashed the front door of the chemist shop, and with another person, went into the shop and took a number of drugs. The offender says that he took methadone because that is what he needed, as well as Subutex, a drug that his sister was taking at the time. The offender says that his co-offender took a whole manner of other drugs. It did not take long for the police to work out who was responsible because, only a few hours after committing the offence, police went to the premises where the offender was living and recovered almost all of the drugs. What they did not recover was a small quantity of methadone and some other tablets.

5 The offender says that this was a decision motivated by a need, as he saw it, to obtain methadone accompanied by feelings of revenge towards the chemist who had put him in that position. This offence is…

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 Dunbar

Details

AGLC: R v Dunbar [2010] NSWDC 94
Case: [2010] NSWDC 94
Decision Date: 22 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dunbar involved the defendant, Dunbar, who was charged with breaking, entering, and stealing while in company. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for the crime, with consideration given to the offender's need for Methadone treatment and the relative seriousness of the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Dunbar, considering both the statutory guidelines and the specific circumstances of the case. The court had to balance the objective seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors presented, including Dunbar's need for Methadone treatment. The court also considered whether the offence was significantly below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, which could potentially influence the length of the non-parole period.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime but recognised the mitigating factors, particularly Dunbar's need for Methadone. The court concluded that the offence, while serious, was significantly below the middle of the range of objective seriousness. This led the court to set a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years. The court balanced the need for punishment with the necessity of addressing the offender's health needs, resulting in a sentence that aimed to achieve both objectives.

The court ordered that Dunbar be sentenced to imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years. This decision reflects the court's approach to sentencing, which considers both the nature of the crime and the specific circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.

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.

CITATION:	R v DUNBAR [2010] NSWDC 94 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	22 April 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	22 April 2010
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Break, enter and steal in company - Need for Methadone - Offence significantly below middle of range of objective seriousness
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900
PARTIES:	The Crown Noel Raymond Dunbar
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2009/203727
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service