R v JF - [2021] NSWDC 287

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JF [2021] NSWDC 287
Hearing dates: 10 December 2020; 15 February 2021; 8 March 2021; 15 March 2021
Date of orders: 15 March 2021
Decision date: 15 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence imposed. Decision at [68] – [69]

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – robbery in company – young person – sentenced as an adult

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 6
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1900 (NSW) ss 3A; 21A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 98

Cases Cited:
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
JF (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Viney (Offender)
Solicitors:
ODPP Solicitor (ODPP)

File Number(s): 2020/3118
Publication restriction: Statutory prohibition on publication in relation to identity of the Offender under s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

Judgment

In this matter JF, “the Offender”, appears to be sentenced on a single charge of robbery in company with wounding in breach of s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 7 years’ imprisonment. As the Offender was under the age of 18, namely 17 years 11 months and 3 weeks at the time of the offence, a standard non-parole period does not apply. The maximum sentence is a guidepost, and reflects the seriousness with which the community, through parliament, considers this offending.
The offending took place on 23 November 2019. The Offender was arrested on 5 January 2020. On 10 November 2020, he was committed for sentence from the Wyong Children’s Court. He has spent no time in custody to date. At the time of the offending, the Offender was subject to concurrent 18 month good behaviour bonds imposed in the Children’s Court on 26 September 2019, for drive recklessly/furiously and take and drive a conveyance. Those bonds have been called up and are to be dealt with today.
On 10 November 2020, I sentenced a co-offender, Brandon Holland. The sentence imposed was a head sentence of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months. It was accepted that his role in the offending was more serious than this present Offender, and the principles of parity mean that the present Offender would receive a less severe sentence. Further, Mr Holland was also charged with possess and use a prohibited weapon. The facts relating to the offending in relation to this Offender are set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit A.
The Offender was born 30 November 2001. Mr Holland was born 3 June 2000. The victim was born 20 May 1987 and was not known to either of the offenders prior to the date of the offence. The Offender was in a relationship with Rhiannon Cook who was present…

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 JF

Details

AGLC: R v JF [2021] NSWDC 287
Case: [2021] NSWDC 287
Decision Date: 15 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JF involved a young person who had committed the crime of robbery in company. The dispute before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had been convicted of this serious offence. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for the defendant.

The central legal issue that the court needed to resolve was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, who was a young person. The court had to consider the nature and severity of the crime, the defendant's age, and other relevant factors such as the defendant's background and the impact of the crime on the victims. The court also had to decide whether to sentence the defendant as an adult or a young person, given the gravity of the offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the circumstances of the case. It examined the facts of the offence, the defendant's background, and the impact of the crime on the victims. The court determined that the offence was particularly serious, involving a robbery in company, and that it warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court ultimately decided to impose a full-time custodial sentence on the defendant, treating the defendant as an adult for sentencing purposes. The decision to impose the sentence was detailed in the judgment at paragraphs [68] to [69].

The court's final order was that the defendant be sentenced to a full-time custodial sentence, as determined in the judgment. This decision reflects the court's view that the defendant's actions warranted a significant penalty and that sentencing the defendant as an adult was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Decision at [68] – [69]

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 JF [2021] NSWDC 287
Hearing dates:	10 December 2020; 15 February 2021; 8 March 2021; 15 March 2021
Date of orders:	15 March 2021
Decision date:	15 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence imposed. Decision at [68] – [69]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – robbery in company – young person – sentenced as an adult
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 6 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1900 (NSW) ss 3A; 21A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 98
Cases Cited:	KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (ODPP) JF (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Viney (Offender) Solicitors: ODPP Solicitor (ODPP)
File Number(s):	2020/3118
Publication restriction:	Statutory prohibition on publication in relation to identity of the Offender under s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)