R v Dylan Peter Gray

Case [2016] NSWDC 368


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dylan Peter Gray [2016] NSWDC 368
Hearing dates:2 November 2016
Date of orders: 16 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

(1) The offender is convicted on each sequence;

 

(2) The offender is to serve a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, to date from today and expire on 15 September 2020;

 

(3) The offender is to serve an additional term of imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months, to commence on 16 September 2020 and to expire on 15 December 2021, at which time the offender is eligible to be released to parole; and

 (4) The offender is disqualified from driving for 3 years.
Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROPERTY OFFENCES – break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence – break and enter with commit serious indictable offence – larceny – unlawfully in possession of property – furnishing false statement to licensee – DRIVING OFFENCES – reckless driving

  SENTENCING – principles of sentencing – aggravating factor – conditional liberty – likelihood of re-offending – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – plea of guilty – aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 4, 112(1)(a), 113(1) and 527C(1)(a)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 22, 47(1)(a) and 53A
Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) s 15(4)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 117(2)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Frigiani v R [2007] NSWCCA 81
Attorney General’s Application (No 1) under s 26 of the Criminal Appeal Act; R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; R v Johnson (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435
Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
Porter v R [2008] NSWCCA 145
R v Carter [2003] NSWCCA 243
R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220
R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Tuuta (2014) 239 A Crim R 399; [2014] NSWCCA 40
Rich v R [2007] NSWCCA 193
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mr Dylan Peter Gray (Offender)
Representation: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mr J Nashed (Offender)
File Number(s):2015/244277
Publication restriction:N/A

Judgment

  1. The offender, Dylan Peter Gray, was committed for sentence in this Court by Magistrate Keady and appeared before me on 2 November 2016 in relation to the following matters:-

  1. Sequence 5: On 12 August 2015 at Carlingford, the offender did break and enter a dwelling house at Carlingford with intent to commit a serious indictable offence (larceny); contrary to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

  2. Sequence 8: On 15 August 2015, the…

Continue reading R v Dylan Peter Gray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dylan Peter Gray [2016] NSWDC 368
Case
[2016] NSWDC 368
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dylan Peter Gray, the defendant faced multiple charges, including breaking and entering with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, actual commission of a serious indictable offence, larceny, unlawful possession of property, providing a false statement to a licensee, and reckless driving. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court needed to decide whether the defendant had committed the offences as charged, and if so, what sentence should be imposed. Key legal issues included the assessment of the defendant's culpability, the relevance of his guilty plea, and the appropriate sentence considering the totality of his offending. The court also had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court found the defendant guilty on all counts. It took into account the defendant's early guilty plea and the fact that he had no prior convictions, but also considered the severity and frequency of his offending. The court recognised the defendant's guarded prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of re-offending, which were aggravating factors. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, and an additional term of 1 year and 3 months. Additionally, the defendant was disqualified from driving for 3 years.

The court concluded by making several orders, including a conviction on each sequence, a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, an additional term of 1 year and 3 months, and a 3-year driving disqualification.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The offender is convicted on each sequence;

(2) The offender is to serve a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, to date from today and expire on 15 September 2020;

(3) The offender is to serve an additional term of imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months, to commence on 16 September 2020 and to expire on 15 December 2021, at which time the offender is eligible to be released to parole; and

(4) The offender is disqualified from driving for 3 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.