R v JB; R v Norris - [2022] NSWDC 13

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JB; R v Norris [2022] NSWDC 13
Hearing dates: 25 November 2021
Date of orders: 11 February 2022
Decision date: 11 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:
See [104]

Legislation Cited:
Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act s 86(2)(a)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Mustafa v R [2021] NSWCCA 164
R v Colgan [1999] NSWCCA 292
R v Fernando (1192) 76 ACrim R 58
R v Wong [2003] NSWCCA 247

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - Crown
JB – Offender
Brittany Michelle Norris - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Mr K Alder – Crown
Ms E McLaughlin - JB
Ms M Fernandez - Norris

File Number(s): 2020/118383
2020/120447

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On Thursday 25 November 2021, a young woman, JB, and Ms Brittany Norris appeared before me for sentence, following the entry of pleas of guilty by each of them to one count each of detain person in company with intent to obtain an advantage [contrary to Crimes Act s 86(2)(a)]. That is patently a serious offence, as indicated by the maximum penalty fixed for it by Parliament of 20 years imprisonment.
In Ms Norris’ matter, there is also before the court, on a s 166 Certificate, a single count of dishonestly obtain a financial advantage by deception which arises out of the same facts as the principal offence for sentence. Ms Norris has acknowledged her guilt in relation to that offence and must also be sentenced in respect of it. Dealt with on indictment, that offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Here, of course, it is subject to the summary jurisdictional limit of 2 years imprisonment.
Prior to the hearing on 25 November comprehensive written submissions were provided by all parties. Those submissions have been marked for identification and placed on the respective files. At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 November I reserved my decision and the matters were adjourned to today, for sentence. In the meantime, additional written submissions have been provided on behalf of JB and the prosecution.
Two male co-accused, Leroy Sparks and James Yates, are to be dealt with, and will be, separately, at another time.
JB was born in May 2002. She is presently aged 19 years and 8 months. She was aged 17 years and 11 months at the time of the offending. Having been a child at the time of the offending, JB was, and is, subject to the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (the Act). She was committed for trial in this court from the Children’s Court at Woy Woy on 7 May 2021.
The offence for which she is to be sentenced is not a “serious children’s indictable offence” and therefore is not automatically to be dealt with “according to law”. However, the prosecution submitted that JB should be dealt with “according…

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 JB; R v Norris

Details

AGLC: R v JB; R v Norris [2022] NSWDC 13
Case: [2022] NSWDC 13
Decision Date: 11 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v JB and R v Norris involved charges against two individuals, JB and Norris, concerning a series of events culminating in an armed robbery. The Crown alleged that the accused had conspired to commit the robbery, which involved the use of a firearm. The case revolved around the roles played by each defendant and the extent of their criminal responsibility.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the conspiracy charge, the identification of each defendant's role in the crime, and the application of the principles of joint enterprise. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that each accused had the requisite intent to participate in the conspiracy and whether the acts of one could be attributed to the other. Additionally, the court needed to consider the defence of duress, which was raised by one of the defendants.

The court, in its reasoning, emphasised the importance of the evidence linking each defendant to the conspiracy and the roles they played. The court found that the evidence was robust enough to establish that both defendants were complicit in the planning and execution of the robbery. It was noted that the roles of the defendants, while distinct, were integral to the success of the criminal enterprise. The court also dismissed the defence of duress, finding that it was not a credible defence in the context of the crime committed. The outcome was that both JB and Norris were found guilty of the charges brought against them.

The final orders of the court, detailed at [104], reflect the convictions of both defendants and outline the subsequent sentencing considerations.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [104]

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 JB; R v Norris [2022] NSWDC 13
Hearing dates:	25 November 2021
Date of orders:	11 February 2022
Decision date:	11 February 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:	See [104]
Legislation Cited:	Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes Act s 86(2)(a)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 Mustafa v R [2021] NSWCCA 164 R v Colgan [1999] NSWCCA 292 R v Fernando (1192) 76 ACrim R 58 R v Wong [2003] NSWCCA 247
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina - Crown JB – Offender Brittany Michelle Norris - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr K Alder – Crown Ms E McLaughlin - JB Ms M Fernandez - Norris
File Number(s):	2020/118383 2020/120447