R v Jukes - [2008] NSWSC 126

CITATION: R v Jukes [2008] NSWSC 126

HEARING DATE(S): 01/02/2008, 20/02/2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months to commence on 29 November 2007 and to expire on 28 November 2008 with a balance of term of 12 months to expire on 28 November 2009. The earliest date eligible for parole is 28 November 2008.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Breaches of s 12 good behaviour bond - break enter and steal offence, abusing amphetamines and failure to comply with directions of Probation and Parole Service - revocation of s 12 bond - special circumstances due to offender's pregnancy - sentence to include a period of imprisonment.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: DPP v Burrow & Anor [2004] NSWSC 433
DPP v Cooke & Anor [2007] 168 A Crim R 379
R v Buckman (1988) 47 SASR 303 at 304
R v Marston (1993) 60 SASR 320 at 322

PARTIES: Crown
Lacy Lee Jukes - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/3574001

COUNSEL: Mr Patricia Adey - Crown
Mr J Stratton SC - Offender

SOLICITORS: Solicitors for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday 29 February 2008

2005/3574001 – REGINA v Lacy Lee JUKES
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 24 August 2006 Lacy Lee Jukes (the offender) pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mack Tepeanapene Hati on 13 September 2003. The offender was initially charged with murder and spent 90 days in custody before being released on conditional bail.

2 On 13 October 2006 in accordance with s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the Act) the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years with a non-parole period of 12 months and a balance of term of 12 months. The non-parole period was to commence on 13 October 2006 and to expire on 12 October 2007. The balance of term was to expire on 12 October 2008. The sentence was wholly suspended for a period of 2 years on condition that the offender be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and be liable to be called up for sentence at any time within that period for any breach of that condition. It was a further condition that within 48 hours the offender report to an officer of the Probation and Parole Service at Tamworth and accept the supervision and obey all reasonable directions of the officers of that Service for a period of 2 years, or for such lesser time as specified by the Service.

3 On 24 December 2006 the offender and her then partner broke into her maternal grandmother’s house and stole a quantity of jewellery. She was charged with that offence in March 2007, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the Tamworth Local Court on 21 November 2007. She was sentenced to imprisonment…

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 Jukes

Details

AGLC: R v Jukes [2008] NSWSC 126
Case: [2008] NSWSC 126
Decision Date: 29 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jukes involved the defendant, Jukes, who was subject to a good behaviour bond under section 12 of the relevant legislation. The prosecution sought revocation of this bond due to Jukes' involvement in a break, enter, and steal offence, her use of amphetamines, and her failure to comply with the directions of the Probation and Parole Service. The court was tasked with determining whether the breaches were severe enough to warrant the revocation of the bond and, if so, what sentence should be imposed. A particular consideration was the defendant's pregnancy, which was noted as a special circumstance.

The central legal issue was whether the breaches of the good behaviour bond warranted revocation and what the appropriate sentence should be, taking into account the special circumstances of the defendant's pregnancy. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the unique circumstances of the defendant. The court also needed to consider whether any alternative to imprisonment could be appropriate given the pregnancy.

The court found that the breaches were serious enough to warrant revocation of the bond. However, due to the special circumstances of the defendant's pregnancy, the court considered a non-custodial sentence initially. Ultimately, the court decided that a period of imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the breaches and to ensure public safety. The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment.

Orders