Legal Research
Cases
R v Inglis

R v Inglis

Case [2023] NSWDC 453 26 October 2023

Crime

Assault

Accessory After the Fact

Armed Robbery

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Inglis [2023] NSWDC 453
Hearing dates: 6 October 2023
Date of orders: 26 October 2023
Decision date: 26 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Fulltime custody. For orders please see [116].

Catchwords:
CRIME – robbery armed with offensive weapon – assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others – accessory after the fact robbery in company.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Carroll v R [2015] NSWCCA 219
Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
KT v R (2008) A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51
Owens v R [2017] NSWCCA 16
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Henry (1999) A Crim R 149; [1999] NSWCCA 111

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Thayne Inglis (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Leaver (offender)
Solicitors:
Ms R Bianchino (Crown)

File Number(s): 2022/183321 & 2022/322499
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender who was born on 9 January 2001 and is now aged 22 years is to be sentenced in respect of the following three matters to which he has entered early pleas of guilty in the Local Court:-

H89421066/1 – Armed robbery on 21 June 2022, an offence pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty proscribed for this offence is 20 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period. (“The Sydney offence”)

H91564218/1 – Accessory after the fact robbery in company on 27 October 2022, an offence pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 with added modifier for accessory after the fact pursuant to s 349(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.

H91564218/2 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others on 27 October 2022, an offence pursuant to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period proscribed. If dealt with summarily, the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units. (“The Newcastle offences”)

For reasons that are outlined below, because of the offender’s past and subsequent criminal history, the offender has spent different periods of time in custody for each set of offences. The Sydney offence on 21 June 2022 was committed whilst the offender was on parole and also subject to an ICO imposed on 23 April 2021 until 10 August 2022.
As a result of that offending his parole was revoked and he was returned to custody until granted bail on 20 October…

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 Inglis

Details

AGLC: R v Inglis [2023] NSWDC 453
Case: [2023] NSWDC 453
Decision Date: 26 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Inglis involved the defendant, Inglis, who was charged with various offences including robbery armed with an offensive weapon, assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others, and being an accessory after the fact to robbery in company. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Inglis was found guilty of all charges and was sentenced to full-time custody.

The primary legal issues in this case involved the interpretation and application of the criminal law in relation to the offences charged. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish Inglis's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This included examining the role of Inglis in the commission of the crimes, the nature of the offences, and the applicable legal principles.

The court considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the defendant's own statements. It was established that Inglis was present during the commission of the robbery and assault, and had knowledge of the criminal activity. The court found that Inglis's actions amounted to being an accessory after the fact, as he aided in the evasion of the perpetrators post-robbery. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Inglis had facilitated the crime and was thus culpable.

The court sentenced Inglis to full-time custody, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the role he played in them. The specific orders of the court, detailing the duration and conditions of the sentence, are outlined in the judgment at [116]. The decision underscores the importance of accountability in criminal activities, particularly when those activities involve violence and collaboration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Fulltime custody. For orders please see [116].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Inglis [2023] NSWDC 453

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Chung v R
[2017] NSWCCA 48 Para 42

…ver a lengthy period of time, that was of little assistance to the offender given it would have been frightening for the victim, relying on Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 at [77].…
Owens v R
[2017] NSWCCA 16 Para 45

…in the Newcastle offences was traveling on public transport late at night, which emphasised the need for substantial punishment, relying on Owens v R [2017] NSWCCA 16 at [78].…
Carroll v R
[2015] NSWCCA 219 Para 54

…indicate where the total effect of the sentences merited by the individual crimes became a crushing sentence. The Crown also relied upon Carroll v R [2015] NSWCCA 219 at [25]. The Crown submitted that any aggregate sentence imposed should be adjusted in order to achieve the appropriate balance between the totality…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 105

…In accordance with the High Court’s decision in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 and the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa, I find that the causal link between the offender’s mental health and his criminal offending together with his life of profound deprivation, di…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 69

…Counsel submitted that the principles relating to offenders with mental health issues outlined in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 were engaged here. The evidence clearly established that the offender had a deprived background which together with the sexual abuse suffered by him in juvenil…
BP v R
[2010] NSWCCA 159 Para 107

…errence, denunciation and retribution – see KT v R (2008) A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51 per McClellan CJ at CL. In BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Hodgson JA, having referred to KT v R, said as follows:…
TM v R
[2008] NSWCCA 158 Para 33

…to the offending, this may be seen as mitigating culpability and thus as reducing what is suggested by considerations of retribution: see TM v R [2008] NSWCCA 158 at [33] – [36]. 5 Second, while I agree with the statements in KT at [26] that the weight to be given to considerations relevant to a person’s youth dimi…
KT v R
[2008] NSWCCA 51 Para 50

…The Crown accepted that the offender’s youth, being 21 at the time of the offending, could be taken into account, relying on KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51. However, lessor weight should be placed on rehabilitation as the offender was acting as an adult when he committed the subject offences.…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 109

…an aggregate sentence the principle of totality applies. The principle of totality was described by of Howie J in Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27]:…
R v E
[2006] NSWCCA 305

…and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old…
R v Hearne
[2001] NSWCCA 37

…Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, youth may be a material factor in sentencing even a 19 year old for a most serious crime. 6 Third, I do not think courts should be over…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 39

…t this was a serious example of this offence having regard to the features outlined in the guideline decision of R v Henry (1999) A Crim R 149; [1999] NSWCCA 111. The Crown submitted that this was more serious than the offending in the guideline judgment.…
Postiglione v the Queen
[1997] HCA 26

…] NSWCCA 48 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 KT v R (2008) A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51 Owens v R [2017] NSWCCA 16 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Henry (1999) A Crim R 149; [1999] NSWCCA 111 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Thayne Ingl…
[2005] 2 NZLR 526
[2005] 2 NZLR 526 Para 43

…velop progressively during adolescence and early adulthood, and may not be fully developed until the early to mid twenties: see R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526 at [43], quoted by Kirby J in R v Elliott [2006] NSWCCA 305; (2006 68 NSWLR 1 at 27 [127]. As shown by R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451, yout…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 39)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Drug Court Act 1988 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 78)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Inglis [2023] NSWDC 453
Hearing dates:	6 October 2023
Date of orders:	26 October 2023
Decision date:	26 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Fulltime custody. For orders please see [116].
Catchwords:	CRIME – robbery armed with offensive weapon – assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of others – accessory after the fact robbery in company.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Carroll v R [2015] NSWCCA 219 Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 KT v R (2008) A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51 Owens v R [2017] NSWCCA 16 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Henry (1999) A Crim R 149; [1999] NSWCCA 111
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Thayne Inglis (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Leaver (offender) Solicitors: Ms R Bianchino (Crown)
File Number(s):	2022/183321 & 2022/322499
Publication restriction:	Nil.