R v Grimes - [2020] NSWDC 172

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grimes [2020] NSWDC 172
Hearing dates: 6 April 2020
Decision date: 06 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years 9 months with a non parole period of two years.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Aggravated break and enter – steal motor vehicle – obtain benefit by deception.
SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing – a strange, confronting and frightening incident in Barrack Heights - early guilty plea – structure of sentence – duress – criminal history – Bugmy factors – never lived normal community life – need for fulltime rehabilitation program – spec circumstances – COVID-19.
Legislation Cited: Children’s (Criminal Detention) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Cases Cited: Brown v R [2020] VSC 60
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
R v Z (2005) 2 AC 467
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365
Texts Cited: Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497. parolesupervisionandreoffending.pdf
Category: Sentence
Parties: Craig Grimes (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr J Hibbard, Trial Advocate, Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT Ltd (for the offender)
Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00079672

SENTENCE – EX PARTE REVISED

The present proceedings were conducted using the virtual court system which was interrupted a number of times because we are still experiencing teething problems primarily relating to NBN connections. To protect the privacy of the victims pseudonyms have been used for their names.

INTRODUCTION

Craig Grimes is for sentence today for four matters; aggravated break enter and commit the indictable offence of larceny in circumstance of aggravation, s 112 Crimes Act 1900, steal motor vehicle, s 154AA Crimes Act, and two summary offences of obtaining a benefit by deception, s 192E(1) Crimes Act. A s 112 Crimes Act 1900 offence has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non parole period of 5 years. A s 154AA Crimes Act offence has a maximum penalty of 5 years. If dealt with in the LC a s 192E(1) Crimes Act offence a maximum of 2 years imprisonment can be imposed.
Grimes guilty pleas were entered in the Local Court. He must have the benefit of a reduction of 25% in the otherwise applicable sentences to reflect the utilitarian value of those pleas, 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. As there are four matters for sentence today and…

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 Grimes

Details

AGLC: R v Grimes [2020] NSWDC 172
Case: [2020] NSWDC 172
Decision Date: 06 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Grimes, the defendant was charged with aggravated break and enter, stealing a motor vehicle, and obtaining a benefit by deception. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges and the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the nature and seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The court was also required to consider the factors that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence, including the Bugmy factors, and the defendant's need for rehabilitation. The court considered the impact of the offences on the victim, the early guilty plea, and the defendant's criminal history, which included a history of mental illness and a lack of stable housing.

The court found that the offences were serious and had a significant impact on the victim. However, the court also found that the defendant had shown remorse and had an early guilty plea, which were mitigating factors. The court also considered the defendant's criminal history and the fact that they had never lived a normal community life. The court found that the defendant required a full-time rehabilitation program and that the special circumstances of the case, including the impact of COVID-19, should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately determined that an aggregate sentence of three years and nine months with a non-parole period of two years was appropriate.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to an aggregate term of three years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The sentence was to be served in a full-time rehabilitation program, taking into account the special circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years 9 months with a non parole period of two 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Grimes [2020] NSWDC 172
Hearing dates:	6 April 2020
Decision date:	06 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years 9 months with a non parole period of two years.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Aggravated break and enter – steal motor vehicle – obtain benefit by deception. SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing – a strange, confronting and frightening incident in Barrack Heights - early guilty plea – structure of sentence – duress – criminal history – Bugmy factors – never lived normal community life – need for fulltime rehabilitation program – spec circumstances – COVID-19.
Legislation Cited:	Children’s (Criminal Detention) Act 1987 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Cases Cited:	Brown v R [2020] VSC 60 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 R v Z (2005) 2 AC 467 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365
Texts Cited:	Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497. parolesupervisionandreoffending.pdf
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Craig Grimes (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr J Hibbard, Trial Advocate, Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT Ltd (for the offender) Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00079672