R v Kevin Doyle

Case [2016] NSWDC 66


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kevin Doyle [2016] NSWDC 66
Hearing dates:28 April 2016
Decision date: 06 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence.  For orders see [43]

Catchwords: Aggravated break and enter while armed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kevin Doyle (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
V Morgan (Crown)
M King (offender)
File Number(s):15/167960
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence for an offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 of aggravated break and enter whilst armed The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment, and there is a standard non-parole period proscribed of 5 years.

  2. In addition to the above charge, there is a s 166 Certificate in respect of an offence pursuant to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, of destroy property, for which the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.

  3. The offender has been in custody since 6 June 2015, when he was arrested.

Circumstances of the offending

  1. Exhibit A was the Crown bundle on sentence, and included a Statement of Facts which summarised the offending as follows. The victim was 77 years of age and was residing on her own in a single storey, semi-detached brick dwelling in Temora. She went to bed at 10.30pm on Friday 5 June 2015. At 1am on 6 June 2015, she heard the sound of a sliding door at the rear of the premises, and a short time later, her bedroom light was turned on and the victim saw the offender standing in her bedroom doorway. His face was covered with a blue and white covering with eye-slits, and he was holding a 15cm knife in his right hand, and was pointing it at her. The offender demanded money from her, then her credit cards, and PIN number. The offender ransacked the victim’s bedroom and the victim went into the lounge room and sat down, hiding her purse underneath a cushion upon which she was sitting. The offender told her to get up and he located the purse and removed its contents, a total of $65.00. Whilst asking for her PIN number, the offender motioned as if to kick the victim while she sat on the lounge. The offender continued to ransack the premises and remove two gold-coloured ladies watches, together with a box of Zydol SR150 medication.

  2. The offender then left and the police were called. They obtained a description of the offender and, later that morning, located the offender at other premises in Temora, where he was in the possession of the stolen items and knife.

  3. Exhibit A also contained the offender’s criminal history. It contained numerous Children’s Court offences from 2007 until 2010, involving common assault, destroying or damaging…

Continue reading R v Kevin Doyle

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kevin Doyle [2016] NSWDC 66
Case
[2016] NSWDC 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Kevin Doyle, was charged with an aggravated break and enter while armed. The case was heard in the District Court of Western Australia. Doyle had broken into a house at night and threatened the occupants with a knife, demanding money. The occupants called the police, and Doyle fled the scene before officers arrived. However, Doyle was apprehended and charged with the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had committed the offence of aggravated break and enter while armed, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court considered the evidence presented and the relevant statutory provisions, including sections of the Criminal Code that define the offence and set out the penalties.

In determining the issue, the court found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Doyle had entered the house unlawfully, was armed with a knife, and threatened the occupants. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. In imposing sentence, the court took into account the defendant's criminal history, his remorse, and the circumstances of the offence. The court ultimately determined that a full-time custodial sentence was appropriate and ordered that Doyle be imprisoned for a period to be determined by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [43]

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.