R v Gordon - [2019] NSWDC 528

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gordon [2019] NSWDC 528
Hearing dates: 17 June 2019
Date of orders: 19 June 2019
Decision date: 19 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [57] to [65]

Catchwords: CRIME — Apprehended violence orders — breach apprehended violence order
CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation
CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property
CRIME — Violent offences — Wound with intent
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — degree of planning — causative connection between an offender's mental health and the commission of an offence SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts — Disputed facts — Rejection of evidence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bullock v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 131
DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Lawson v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 215
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
Carson Gordon (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Jiang (Offender)
Solicitors:
C Hurford (DPP)

File Number(s): 2016/00379019

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender pleaded guilty to the following offences on an indictment: that on 17 December 2016 at Glenwood he intentionally damaged property namely a silver coloured Volvo sedan being the property of Mr Timothy Glasson. That is an offence under s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. There is a further offence that on the same date and place he intimidated Ms Rosie MacIntyre with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm. That is an offence under s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act and has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. There is a further offence that on the same date and place he wounded Mr Timothy Glasson with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. That is an offence under s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, and there is an applicable standard non‑parole period of seven years.
When sentencing him for the wounding with intent offence the offender acknowledges his guilt and asks that I take into account a further offence on a Form 1 being an offence that on 15 December 2016 at Schofields he intimidated Mr Timothy Glasson with the intention of causing him to fear physical or mental harm. There is also another offence on the Form 1 being an intentional damage offence concerning Mr Glasson's vehicle that occurred on 15 December 2016. There is also an offence on a s 166 certificate of breaching an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order.

Facts

In the main the facts are agreed, however, there was a dispute in the sentence proceedings before me earlier this week about how it was that the wounding to Mr Glasson occurred. I will come…

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 Gordon

Details

AGLC: R v Gordon [2019] NSWDC 528
Case: [2019] NSWDC 528
Decision Date: 19 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gordon was charged with multiple offences, including stalking or intimidation, damaging property, and wounding with intent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant faced sentencing following his guilty plea. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence, considering the objective seriousness of the offences, the degree of planning, the connection between Gordon's mental health and the commission of the offences, and the subjective considerations such as his age. The court had to weigh these factors alongside the agreed and disputed facts, and decide whether to accept or reject certain evidence presented.

The court evaluated the objective seriousness of the offences, noting the degree of planning involved and the causative connection between Gordon's mental health and the commission of the offences. It also considered the subjective factors, such as Gordon's age, and assessed the totality of circumstances. The court rejected some evidence due to procedural disputes, focusing instead on the facts that were undisputed or agreed upon by both parties. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence needed to reflect the gravity of the offences while also considering the personal circumstances of the offender.

The court concluded that Gordon's offences, while serious, were not premeditated to a high degree, and that his mental health issues did play a role in the commission of the offences. The subjective considerations, particularly his age, were also taken into account. After a thorough analysis, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the rehabilitative needs of Gordon. The final orders and sentence were detailed in paragraphs [57] to [65] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [57] to [65]

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 Gordon [2019] NSWDC 528
Hearing dates:	17 June 2019
Date of orders:	19 June 2019
Decision date:	19 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Buscombe DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [57] to [65]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Apprehended violence orders — breach apprehended violence order CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property CRIME — Violent offences — Wound with intent SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness — degree of planning — causative connection between an offender's mental health and the commission of an offence SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts — Disputed facts — Rejection of evidence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bullock v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 131 DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Lawson v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 215 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Carson Gordon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: J Jiang (Offender) Solicitors: C Hurford (DPP)
File Number(s):	2016/00379019