R v Jones - [2019] NSWDC 914

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jones [2019] NSWDC 914
Hearing dates: 1 July 2019
Decision date: 09 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order with the additional condition - to serve 50 hours community service.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – intimidation - in company – element of vigilantism – intervention by offender prevented further assault by co-offender – lesser moral culpability than co-offender - unplanned - plea of guilty at trial – cognitive disability arising from motor vehicle accident -

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

Cases Cited:
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Harris [2005] NSWCCA 204
R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; (2018) 275 A Crim R 233

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Melissa Jane Jones (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M King (offender)
Solicitors:
Ms V Morgan (DPP)
Mr Hollis (offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00109114
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Melissa Jane Jones appears today for sentence in relation to an offence contrary to s 112(2), Crimes Act 1900, shortly described as an aggravated breaking and entering, and commit serious indictable offence in company. The serious indictable offence is the offence of ‘intimidation’ which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. Within the range of serious indictable offences contemplated by s 112, it can be seen really almost at the lowest level of any serious indictable offence that could be contemplated to be committed under the section.
The prisoner committed the offence on 8 April 2018, was arrested that day and spent no time in custody. I should point out that the offence to which the prisoner pleaded guilty has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, with a standard non‑parole period of five years.
The prisoner was born in December 1973, and thus as I have calculated, she is now 45 years of age, and was 44 years of age at the time of the offending. She is a mature woman.
Before I introduce the facts, there is a matter that needs to be addressed from the outset. It is of considerable significance and it is, in many respects, a matter that places this offence to my mind, as the Crown correctly identified, on the cusp of disposal by way of a Community Corrections Order rather than an Intensive Correction Order.
The prisoner was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in 2017. That is before the offence that she appears for sentence for at court today. I should point out, the prisoner pleaded guilty on the day that her trial was supposed to start and I propose to give her discount of 10% upon the otherwise appropriate sentence for…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2019] NSWDC 914
Case: [2019] NSWDC 914
Decision Date: 09 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a case of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, involving the defendant, Jones, and his co-offender. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Jones and his co-offender broke into a residence with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence. They were armed with knives and engaged in intimidation. The presence of both offenders and the element of vigilantism contributed to the aggravation of the crime. Jones' intervention prevented a further assault by his co-offender, leading to the argument that he had lesser moral culpability. Jones entered a plea of guilty at trial and disclosed that he had a cognitive disability arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the aggravating factors, Jones' intervention, his lesser moral culpability, and his cognitive disability. The court considered the totality of the circumstances and balanced the principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. In sentencing Jones, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. Additionally, Jones was required to serve 50 hours of community service.

The court ordered that Jones be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, with the additional condition of serving 50 hours of community service. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the aggravating factors, Jones' intervention, his lesser moral culpability, and his cognitive disability. The court aimed to achieve a balance between the principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order with the additional condition - to serve 50 hours community service.

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 Jones [2019] NSWDC 914
Hearing dates:	1 July 2019
Decision date:	09 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order with the additional condition - to serve 50 hours community service.
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – intimidation - in company – element of vigilantism – intervention by offender prevented further assault by co-offender – lesser moral culpability than co-offender - unplanned - plea of guilty at trial – cognitive disability arising from motor vehicle accident -
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 R v Harris [2005] NSWCCA 204 R v Huynh [2005] NSWCCA 220 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; (2018) 275 A Crim R 233
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Melissa Jane Jones (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M King (offender) Solicitors: Ms V Morgan (DPP) Mr Hollis (offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00109114
Publication restriction:	No