R v Foster

Case [2024] NSWDC 2


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Foster [2024] NSWDC 2
Hearing dates: 23 January 2024
Decision date: 25 January 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:

See para [56] of these reasons

Catchwords:

CRIME – Two counts of aggravated enter dwelling and steal motor vehicle – Significant criminal history – Drug use – Addiction – Accumulation – Totality – Special Circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900, ss 111(2), 154F

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s25D(2)

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 10(1)

Cases Cited:

Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1

Callaghanv R [2006] NSWCCA 58

Morrison v R [2022] NSWCCA 158

R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172

R v Grover; Grover v R [2013] NSWCCA 149.

R v Lunhan [2016] NSWCCA 287

R v Primmer [2020] NSWCCA 50

R v Lunhan [2016] NSWCCA 287

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex
Matthew Foster
Representation:

Counsel:

R Nezval (Crown)
D Pace (Offender)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
KK Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2023/19796
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

The Events

  1. HIS HONOUR: On the evening of 7 January and early morning of 8 January 2023, on two occasions within hours of each other, the Offender, Matthew Foster, was involved in breaking into the same home while the owners were asleep and stole a different Mercedes Benz vehicle on each occasion. The first event he conducted on his own, the second with his co-accused, Mr William Rogers, whose sentence I will deal with immediately following. The Offender is an accessory before the fact in relation to the second event, because he waited in the car outside whilst Mr Rogers took the second car from the garage.

The charges

  1. The Offender is to be sentenced for the following offences:

  1. Aggravated enter dwelling with intent knowing people there, entering a dwelling house with intent to steal car keys and other items while there were persons present, contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

  2. Aggravated enter dwelling with intent knowing people there, for being an accessory before the fact to the entering of a dwelling house with intent to steal a black Mercedes Benz while there were persons present, contrary to s111(2) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

  3. Steal Motor vehicle, for stealing a Black Mercedes Benz bearing NSW registration plates [xxx]04E, contrary to s154F Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

  4. Steal Motor vehicle, for being an accessory before the fact to the stealing of a Black Mercedes Benz bearing NSW registration plates [xxx]11E, contrary to s154F Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

  1. None of the offences carry a standard non-parole period.

Section 166 certificate

  1. The Offender is also before the Court for the following related offence contained in the s166 certificate. The drugs in question were found at the Offender's premises on execution of a search warrant relevant to the above offences.

Continue reading R v Foster

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Foster [2024] NSWDC 2
Case
[2024] NSWDC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Foster involved the appellant, who was convicted on two counts of aggravated enter dwelling and steal motor vehicle. The appellant had a substantial criminal history, including drug use and addiction, which had led to a significant accumulation of offences. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether the appellant's addiction should be considered a special circumstance under the sentencing provisions, potentially leading to a lesser penalty. The court needed to weigh the totality of the appellant's criminal history, the nature of the current offences, and the impact of his addiction.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to the case, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It considered the appellant's addiction as a mitigating factor but also recognised the seriousness of the current offences. The court concluded that while the appellant's addiction was a significant factor, it did not outweigh the need to impose a sufficient penalty for the aggravated enter dwelling and steal motor vehicle offences. The court found that the total sentence imposed was appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the need to protect the community.

The Supreme Court of Queensland upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, noting that the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the current offences warranted a substantial penalty. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to hold the appellant accountable for his actions. The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraph [56] of the reasons, confirmed the sentences imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para [56] of these reasons

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.