R v Geerlings (No.2) - [2019] NSWDC 439

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Geerlings (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 439
Hearing dates: 16 April 2019
Decision date: 16 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non parole period of 4 years 6 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - Aggravated break, enter, and steal in company; possessing shortened firearm without authority; possessing unauthorised pistol; supply prohibited drug.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s112(2); Firearm's Act 1996 (NSW) ss7(1), 62(1)(b); Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s25(1)
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Paul Fredrick Geerlings
Representation:
Mr Reville (ODPP)
Ms Davids (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/100131
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Paul Fredrick Geerlings, you are appear for sentence today in relation to the following four principal offences.
First, aggravated break, enter and steal in company. This involves a contravention of s 112(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 5 years' imprisonment.
Secondly, possessing a shortened firearm without authority. This involves a contravention of s 62(1)(b) of the Firearm’s Act The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.
Thirdly, possessing an unauthorised pistol. This involves a contravention of s 7(1) of the Firearm’s Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is also 14 years' imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 4 years' imprisonment.
Fourthly, supplying a prohibited drug, being 93.63 grams of the drug commonly known as MDMA, otherwise known as ecstasy. This involves a contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years' imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.
This sentence hearing commenced on 11 March 2019. The matter was adjourned on that date because of the unsatisfactory nature of the document described as an agreed statement of facts - see R v Geerlings [2019] NSWDC 83.
The following are the facts in relation to the offences, Mr Geerlings, for which you are to be sentenced today.
In March of 2018, you were 47 years old.
You had a long criminal history and a longer addiction to illicit drugs.
As far as I can see, the cause of that unsatisfactory life, more likely than not, was the sexual abuse you received at the hands of a Catholic priest when you were nine years old. That priest (your parish priest) knew that your parents had separated and that you were therefore a vulnerable child.
You turned to drugs (in circumstances I shall come back to) when you were a teenager: first, cannabis and then heroin - which has been your lifelong companion ever since.
It is regrettable (to say the least) that what I see as a clear connection between your sexual abuse as a child, your self medication with heroin, and your criminality has never…

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 Geerlings (No.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Geerlings (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 439
Case: [2019] NSWDC 439
Decision Date: 16 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Geerlings, was before the High Court of Australia appealing against his sentence for a number of serious criminal offences. The appellant had broken into a house with a firearm, possessing a shortened firearm without authority, possessing an unauthorised pistol, and supplying a prohibited drug. The trial judge had sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months. The appellant appealed against the length of his sentence, submitting that it was excessive and that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the principle of proportionality.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the principle of proportionality. The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the offending and the need to deter the appellant and others from committing similar offences. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the principle of proportionality by failing to adequately consider the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offending. The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had adequately considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing the appellant.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had adequately considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing the appellant. The court found that the totality of the offending warranted a significant period of incarceration and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending. The court also found that the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offending in sentencing the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant was to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non parole period of 4 years 6 months.

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 Geerlings (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 439
Hearing dates:	16 April 2019
Decision date:	16 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non parole period of 4 years 6 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - Aggravated break, enter, and steal in company; possessing shortened firearm without authority; possessing unauthorised pistol; supply prohibited drug.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s112(2); Firearm's Act 1996 (NSW) ss7(1), 62(1)(b); Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s25(1)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Paul Fredrick Geerlings
Representation:	Mr Reville (ODPP) Ms Davids (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/100131
Publication restriction:	Nil