R v Jeffreys - [2016] NSWDC 433

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jeffreys [2016] NSWDC 433
Hearing dates: 7 June 2016
Date of orders: 07 June 2016
Decision date: 07 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sides QC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 20 months with a head sentence of 30 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence -Discount for guilty plea during “super callover” at Parramatta – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Do an act with the intention of influencing a witness – s166 certificate – Breach of AVO
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: R-v-Borkowski (2009) NSWCA 102 195 A Cr R
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Shannon Douglas Jeffreys
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Burton for the Crown
Ms H Cox for the offender
Solicitors:
Mitchell Lawyers – The offender
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown

File Number(s): 2014/284557
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The Offender Shannon Douglas Jeffreys appears for sentence consequent upon his pleading guilty on 2 June 2016 to the following two offences:

Count 1: assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed upon the victim Lucinda Lawrence on 26 September 2014 which has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment; and

Count 2: doing an act on 12 February 2015 with the intention of influencing a witness, namely the victim, Lucinda Lawrence, to give false evidence which has a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

There are no prescribed standard non‑parole periods and the matters could be dealt with summarily.
The Court notes that he was committed for trial in connection with offences more serious in nature. On 22 October 2015, following the Offender pleading not guilty to six counts the Court fixed a trial date of 29 September 2016. This matter was included in what was called the Super Callover conducted at Parramatta in the week commencing 30 May in an attempt to address the Court’s workload which, over the past four years or so, has significantly increased, with no corresponding increase in the Court’s resources, certainly not of the nature to meet the demands of the increased workload. This has led to a significant backlog, particularly in relation to matters committed for trial and sentence in all places where the District Court sits in this State. The backlog and consequent delay in finalising trial matters as a result at Parramatta is amongst the most significant in the State. The backlog and consequent delays in trials has an adverse impact upon the Court’s capacity to deliver justice in a timely fashion. This has an impact upon victims, accused persons, as well as witnesses. Further the community has an interest in the delivery of justice in a timely fashion.
As a consequence of this Offender pleading guilty last Friday, almost four months before his trial was due to begin, the Court is in a position to provide that trial date to another trial. The Court notes that the estimate of the length…

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 Jeffreys

Details

AGLC: R v Jeffreys [2016] NSWDC 433
Case: [2016] NSWDC 433
Decision Date: 07 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jeffreys, faced a criminal court in Parramatta, accused of assaulting someone and causing actual bodily harm. Jeffreys was also charged with attempting to influence a witness and breaching an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO). The case involved several legal issues, including whether a guilty plea during a "super callover" at Parramatta should lead to a reduced sentence, the applicability of a s166 certificate, and the nature and severity of the assault. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and the defendant's background, against the gravity of the offences committed.

The legal issues centred around the sentencing principles applicable in cases where a defendant pleads guilty during a "super callover" and whether this warranted a discount in sentence. The court also had to consider the implications of the s166 certificate, which typically indicates a history of offending and the likelihood of reoffending. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the seriousness of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the attempt to influence a witness, and the breach of an AVO. The court examined the circumstances of each offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing to arrive at an appropriate aggregate sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the mitigating effect of the guilty plea made during the "super callover," which generally results in a 10% to 15% discount. However, the court also considered the severity of the assault and the breach of the AVO, which indicated a pattern of violent behaviour and disregard for legal constraints. The court determined that despite the discount for the guilty plea, the overall seriousness of the offences required a substantial custodial sentence. The court imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 20 months with a head sentence of 30 months, reflecting a balance between the mitigating factors and the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court's final orders included a sentence of 20 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 months. This sentence took into account the defendant's guilty plea, his criminal history, and the nature and severity of the offences. The court aimed to ensure that the sentence was both punitive and rehabilitative, reflecting the need to protect the community and deter future offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 20 months with a head sentence of 30 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 Jeffreys [2016] NSWDC 433
Hearing dates:	7 June 2016
Date of orders:	07 June 2016
Decision date:	07 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sides QC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 20 months with a head sentence of 30 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence -Discount for guilty plea during “super callover” at Parramatta – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Do an act with the intention of influencing a witness – s166 certificate – Breach of AVO
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	R-v-Borkowski (2009) NSWCA 102 195 A Cr R
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Shannon Douglas Jeffreys
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Burton for the Crown Ms H Cox for the offender Solicitors: Mitchell Lawyers – The offender Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s):	2014/284557
Publication restriction:	Nil