R v Handley - [2007] NSWDC 38

CITATION: R v HANDLEY [2007] NSWDC 38

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 February 2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 20 February 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: See paragraph [10]

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Addiction to drugs - Demand money with menaces - Break enter and steal - Carried in a conveyance

PARTIES: Crown
Scott Wallace Peter Handley

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/1019

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP
Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Scott Peter Handley appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to four offences. They were committed very soon after Mr Handley was released on parole for very similar offences. That is a matter of serious concern and is obviously a matter of serious aggravation. The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for an offence of break enter and steal. He was dealt with in, what appears to have been, a fairly lenient manner. All that leniency did was enable him to be released earlier than he might otherwise have been and that in turn enabled him simply to re-commence his criminal offending earlier than he would otherwise. The time for leniency in Mr Handley’s case has passed. The time has come for sentences to be visited upon him which reflect the serious nature of his ongoing criminality, to protect householders from his repeated activity, and hopefully to deter him from continuing on the life that he has chosen to follow thus far.

2 The offender was released from custody on parole for an offence of break enter and steal, that was on 15 February 2006. For a short time he managed to remain drug free. I should interpolate here it is his addiction to drugs which has led to him committing such a large number of offences in the past. But it was only a relatively short time after his release that he relapsed and recommenced his drug use, gave up the job that he had managed to obtain and began supporting his drug habit through the commission of criminal offences. The first of those offences actually appears on a Form 1, that was committed on 21 May 2006. The Form 1 is attached to the offence of demand money with menaces which I will deal with shortly. The offence of 21 May 2006 involved the offender making a false statement to a pawnbroker when he produced some material to that pawnbroker in order to receive money for the item. The next offence is a matter that he is to be specifically sentenced for, that was an offence of break enter and steal on 26 May. He entered premises at Beacon Hill by removing two louvred sheets of glass. Once in there he took a Sony DVD recorder, a camera and a television. He left in a utility which I will mention again later because it is also the subject of an offence on a Form 1. He was identified as being the offender by his fingerprints being…

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 Handley

Details

AGLC: R v Handley [2007] NSWDC 38
Case: [2007] NSWDC 38
Decision Date: 20 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Handley was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Handley, was charged with several criminal offences. Handley was accused of breaking and entering into a residence, stealing property, and demanding money with menaces. The charges stemmed from an incident where Handley entered a property, took certain items, and threatened the occupants when confronted. Handley pleaded guilty to all charges, but the court had to determine an appropriate sentence that took into account his addiction to drugs and the circumstances surrounding the offences.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for Handley's crimes, considering the mitigating factors of his drug addiction and the nature of the offences. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to address Handley's underlying issues that may have contributed to his criminal behaviour. The court also had to consider the impact of Handley's addiction on his capacity to make rational decisions at the time of the offences.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the seriousness of Handley's crimes but acknowledged the significant impact of his drug addiction. The court recognised that Handley's addiction had played a substantial role in his offending behaviour, which necessitated a sentence that included rehabilitation and support. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment, coupled with a requirement for Handley to participate in a drug rehabilitation program, was the most appropriate outcome. This decision aimed to address both the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the criminal justice system.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for Handley, to be served in a correctional facility, and a requirement for him to participate in a drug treatment program upon release. The court ordered that the sentence would be served concurrently with any other sentences Handley may be serving, and that he would be subject to supervision and support services upon his release to assist in his reintegration into society and to prevent reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [10]

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.

CITATION:	R v HANDLEY [2007] NSWDC 38
HEARING DATE(S):	20 February 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 February 2007
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	20 February 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	See paragraph [10]
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - Addiction to drugs - Demand money with menaces - Break enter and steal - Carried in a conveyance
PARTIES:	Crown Scott Wallace Peter Handley
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/1019
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission