R v Jado - [2019] NSWDC 690

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jado [2019] NSWDC 690
Hearing dates: 04 November 2019
Date of orders: 04 November 2019
Decision date: 04 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months

Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation
CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery — Circumstances of aggravation
CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company
SENTENCING — Penalties — Good behaviour bond
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Joint criminal enterprise
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Fines Act 1996
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
David Jado (Offender)
Representation:
Peter Clayton (Crown)
Abdul Shukoor (counsel) (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/00389047

EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGEMENT

SENTENCE

BREACH OF CONDITIONAL LIBERTY

First of all, with regard to the s 9 breaches, I note that the offender was sentenced to two bonds pursuant to s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, each of nine months from 19 December 2017. These were for offences of driving whilst suspended. The circumstances of those offences are set forth in the statement of facts that the Crown has been able to retrieve from records.
The first offence was on 19 January 2017; the next was on 22 November 2017. On both occasions the offender’s licence had been suspended for non‑payment of fines. The suspension operated by force of s 66 Fines Act 1996. Unfortunately, the driving involved some other misconduct; I note that he is not being punished for the further traffic offences committed in the course of the driving when he was detected, but it is relevant to the extent to which he has shown a disregard of his obligations, and it must be brought to account when assessing the objective gravity of the offending in each case.
In the course of the first offence on 19 January 2017 he drove through a stop sign without stopping and on the second occasion he was detected driving at 121 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre area. His explanation for that was he was in a rush to get home.
The bonds to which he was subject as a consequence of those offences were both current at the time of the offences that are now before me. He consents to this Court calling him to answer for the breaches of the bonds.…

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 Jado

Details

AGLC: R v Jado [2019] NSWDC 690
Case: [2019] NSWDC 690
Decision Date: 04 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jado involved an appeal by the defendant against his sentence for multiple violent offences. The defendant, along with others, was involved in a series of robberies and had been convicted by a lower court. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the role of the defendant within the joint criminal enterprise. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence to ensure it was just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in sentencing, particularly the nature of the offences, the defendant's role, and the circumstances of aggravation. The court also had to determine whether the aggregate sentence imposed, which was five years with a non-parole period of two years and six months, was proportionate to the crimes committed. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessive, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the crimes.

The High Court found that the trial judge had thoroughly considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, which involved multiple instances of robbery in company and the use of violence. The court also considered the circumstances of aggravation, including the impact on the victims and the defendant's role within the joint criminal enterprise. The aggregate sentence was deemed appropriate as it reflected the cumulative effect of the defendant's criminal conduct and the need to deter such behaviour in the future. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and did not require alteration.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The final orders confirmed the aggregate sentence of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years and six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 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 Jado [2019] NSWDC 690
Hearing dates:	04 November 2019
Date of orders:	04 November 2019
Decision date:	04 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery — Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company SENTENCING — Penalties — Good behaviour bond SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Joint criminal enterprise SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Fines Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) David Jado (Offender)
Representation:	Peter Clayton (Crown) Abdul Shukoor (counsel) (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2017/00389047