R v Geerlings

[2019] NSWDC 83

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Geerlings [2019] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates:	11 March 2019
Decision date:	11 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence hearing adjourned; contested facts hearing required.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL - Sentence proceedings - unsatisfactory "Agreed Statement of Facts" - significant exculpatory facts not agreed by the Crown
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Paul Frederick Geerlings (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Bhat (Crown) Ms Davids (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00100131
Publication restriction:	Nil

1. On 24 October 2018 Paul Frederick Geerlings was committed for sentence to this Court by the Burwood Local Court in respect of four offences: aggravated break, enter and steal in company; possess shortened firearm without authority; possess unauthorised pistol; and supply of a significant quantity of the drug commonly known as MDMA.

2. The matter was first listed for mention in this Court on 23 November 2018. The outcome sheet prepared by the associate to the list judge noted that the matter was adjourned to 10 December 2018 for mention “to allow the parties time to resolve the issues raised”. Unfortunately, the outcome sheet is not more detailed as to what those “issues” were.

3. On 10 December 2018 the matter again came before the list judge, at which time it was adjourned until 13 December 2018 for mention. No further details of what occurred on 10 December 2018 are noted in the outcome sheet prepared by the associate to the list judge.

4. However, on 12 December 2018 a document described as “Agreed Statement of Facts” was signed by a solicitor in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The next day, 13 December 2018, the matter came back before the list judge. Although the outcome sheet prepared by the list judge’s associate does not expressly state it, the only rational inference in the circumstances is that the list judge was informed that the facts were agreed. The matter was fixed for hearing today.

5. At the commencement of the hearing, after Mr Geerlings had been arraigned on an indictment in connection with the fourth offence (that being necessary because of a technical defect in the court attendance notice) and having adhered to his pleas in respect of the other matters, the Crown sentence bundle was tendered. It contained, amongst other things, a document described as an “Agreed Statement of Facts”. At the end of that document there are four paragraphs under the heading “Interview”. In para 23 the offender gives an exculpatory explanation for the presence of the firearms in his house. In para 24 he gives an exculpatory explanation for the drugs found on his person.

6. The purpose of an agreed statement of facts is for the Court to have before it facts which are agreed. All too frequently, documents described as “agreed statement of facts” contain contentious assertions which, upon examination by the Court, reveal a significant absence of agreement as to facts.

7. The present case is but one of far too many examples. It is a practice which, in my opinion, must stop.

8. The Crown does not agree with the exculpatory version given by the offender as to how it came about and why these firearms were in his house. The Crown does not agree with the exculpatory version of how it was that the offender came to be in possession of such a valuable quantity of drugs.

9. Why it was that the Crown prepared this document called an “Agreed Statement of Facts” and included within it this contentious material is unexplained. It has resulted, amongst other things, in a complete waste of the Court’s time today because it is now going to be necessary for a contested facts hearing to be embarked upon.

10. The offender has been advised that, if he is unsuccessful in that contested facts hearing, the discount for the plea will be, in all probability, either very significantly reduced or, depending on the length of the contested facts hearing, entirely eliminated.

11. A contested facts hearing is listed for hearing before me at 10 o’clock Tuesday 16 April 2019. I have given it a preliminary estimate of one day.

12. The matters on the Form 1 will not be certified by me. Rather, if the offender wishes me to deal with them as s 166 certificates he can, through his counsel, indicate his consent, or otherwise on the next occasion. Those certificates are also stood over to 16 April 2019.

13. Bail is not applied for and is formally refused. A s 77 warrant is to issue.

14. The transcript of today’s judgment is to be taken out.

15. ADJOURNED TO TUESDAY 16 APRIL 2019 FOR A CONTESTED FACTS HEARING