R v Jones - [2019] NSWDC 353

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jones [2019] NSWDC 353
Hearing dates: 09 May 2019
Date of orders: 09 May 2019
Decision date: 09 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of three years, four months with a non-parole period of one year, nine months: at [29]

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Without regard for public safety — Use of weapon — cricket bat
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — Provocation
— Good character — Unlikely to reoffend —rehabilitation — Remorse
SENTENCING — Plea of guilty — Evidence
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Delay — Deterrence — Victim Impact Statement
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Special circumstances — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
R v Formosa [2005] NSWCCA 363
R v Ryan; R v MacPherson [2006] NSWCCA 394
R v Shorten [2005] NSWCCA 106
R v Spiers [2008] NSWCCA 107
R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Hayden Jones (Offender)
Representation:
Mr C Allison (Crown)
Ms R Khalilizadeh (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/277777

Judgment

More than 13 years ago, on 14 January 2006 Marguerite Warn and a number of work colleagues were at a function at the Westin Hotel in Martin Place in the city of Sydney. It had a Pirates of the Caribbean theme. The group was dressed as West Indian cricketers and during the night they went outside into Martin Place to play cricket. Three men, including the offender, approached them at about 9.45 and started intervening in the game of cricket.
The offender, Hayden Jones, who was born in 1986, pushed one of the group named Peter Lotz. Lotz then punched the offender because he thought he was going to be hit by the three members of the group. The other two men began to punch Lotz in the head. Jones then took a cricket bat from a woman who was batting at the time, and he started swinging it at people who were in the group, including the victim. Lotz tried to get the bat off him, but he continued to swing with the bat and chase after other people. As Marguerite was trying to get away with her back to the offender, he deliberately, but recklessly as to committing grievous bodily harm, swung the bat which forcefully hit the left hand side of her face in the vicinity of her left eye socket. She dropped to the ground unconscious. He continued to chase other people while holding the bat before someone took it off him, and then the three of them left in a northerly direction on Pitt Street. An ambulance was called, blood was…

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 353
Case: [2019] NSWDC 353
Decision Date: 09 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved the defendant being charged with a criminal offence and subsequently pleading guilty. The nature of the offence involved the use of a cricket bat, which the court considered an aggravating factor. The case was heard and determined by a court in Australia. The legal issues the court had to address included the identification and weighing of both aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. These factors included the defendant's disregard for public safety, the use of a weapon, provocation, good character, the likelihood of reoffending, remorse, and the subjective considerations such as mental illness and drug addiction.

The court examined the plea of guilty and the evidence presented, which played a role in the sentencing process. Mitigating factors such as the defendant not being part of a planned or organised criminal activity, the presence of provocation, good character, and the likelihood of rehabilitation and remorse were weighed against the aggravating factors. The court also took into account the delay in the proceedings, the need for deterrence, and the victim impact statement. Special considerations such as the defendant's mental illness and drug addiction were also evaluated in determining the appropriate sentence.

After considering all these factors, the court concluded that a term of imprisonment was necessary. The defendant was sentenced to three years and four months in prison, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. This decision reflects a balanced consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the broader objectives of sentencing such as deterrence and rehabilitation. The final orders of the court mandated the defendant to serve the specified term of imprisonment, adhering to the determined non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of three years, four months with a non-parole period of one year, nine months: at [29]

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 353
Hearing dates:	09 May 2019
Date of orders:	09 May 2019
Decision date:	09 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of three years, four months with a non-parole period of one year, nine months: at [29]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Without regard for public safety — Use of weapon — cricket bat SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — Provocation — Good character — Unlikely to reoffend —rehabilitation — Remorse SENTENCING — Plea of guilty — Evidence SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Delay — Deterrence — Victim Impact Statement SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Special circumstances — Drug addiction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 R v Formosa [2005] NSWCCA 363 R v Ryan; R v MacPherson [2006] NSWCCA 394 R v Shorten [2005] NSWCCA 106 R v Spiers [2008] NSWCCA 107 R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Hayden Jones (Offender)
Representation:	Mr C Allison (Crown) Ms R Khalilizadeh (Offender)
File Number(s):	2017/277777