R v Knight - [2021] NSWDC 699

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Knight [2021] NSWDC 699
Hearing dates: 16 December 2021
Date of orders: 16 December 2021
Decision date: 16 December 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph 77 – 78

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – conspiracy to commit serious indictable offence – offender conspired to break-in and steal property from a targeted home – consideration of offender’s drug addiction – prospects of rehabilitation – Bugmy principles

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 111, 112
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A

Cases Cited:
Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Pettersen v R [2013] NSWCCA 20
R vHaidar [2004] NSWCCA 350
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R vMcNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R vPearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
R vSukkar [2011] NSWCCA 140
The Queen v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32
The Queen v LK (2010) 241 CLR 177
Tyler v R (2007) 173 A Crim R 438

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Peter Knight (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Doyle for the offender
Mr B Ng (solicitor advocate) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
David Ryan Legal for the offender

File Number(s): 2021/82831
Publication restriction: Nil

ex tempore sentencing remarks

Background

The offender is to be sentenced, following a plea of guilt, for the offence that between 15 March 2021 and 19 March 2021, in Penrith and other places in New South Wales, he conspired with Maika Ufi (aka ‘Tuufs’) to enter a dwelling-house in Cranebrook (hereafter the ‘targeted home’), whilst being in the company of Ufi, with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely to steal. This offence is contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
As this is an offence for conspiracy in common law, the sentence is at large. The maximum penalty for the substantive offence under s 111(2) is 14 years’ imprisonment. There is no statutory non-parole period for that substantive offence.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

The offending was detected by police relying upon intercepted mobile phone calls between the offender and the co-accused, Ufi.
Ufi had known Mr Michael Austin, who lived at the targeted home with his partner and their two children. Ufi had met Mr Austin through a mutual friend, Ms Pettiford-Martin, who had previously resided near the targeted home.
Ufi and the offender agreed to attend Austin’s place with the intention of stealing property.
Between 16 March 2021 and 18 March 2021, there were a significant number of calls between Ufi and the offender which police lawfully intercepted. The precise content of the calls is set out in considerable detail in the statement of agreed facts.
The content of the calls may be summarised as follows.
To begin with, the following calls or text messages occurred on 16 March 2021 :

at 6:32am, Ufi contacted the offender. Ufi suggested that there may be a…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2021] NSWDC 699
Case: [2021] NSWDC 699
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Knight involves the defendant, Knight, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit a serious indictable offence, specifically a planned break-in and theft from a targeted home. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issues before the court were the sentencing considerations, particularly the defendant's drug addiction and prospects for rehabilitation, in light of the principles outlined in Bugmy v The Queen. The court was tasked with balancing these mitigating factors against the severity of the planned criminal activity.

In addressing these issues, the court thoroughly examined the defendant's background, including his history of drug addiction and its impact on his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The court considered the Bugmy principles, which emphasise the importance of understanding the offender's personal circumstances, including addiction, in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also assessed the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, taking into account his willingness to engage in treatment programs and his potential to reintegrate into society. The severity of the planned crime and the need for general deterrence were also weighed in the overall sentencing decision.

The court concluded that, despite the defendant's addiction and potential for rehabilitation, the planned crime was serious and warranted a substantial custodial sentence. However, the court recognised the importance of addressing the underlying issues contributing to the defendant's criminal behaviour, particularly his drug addiction. The court imposed a sentence that included both imprisonment and orders for the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs. This balanced approach aimed to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in accordance with the principles set out in Bugmy. The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs 77 to 78 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 77 – 78

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 Knight [2021] NSWDC 699
Hearing dates:	16 December 2021
Date of orders:	16 December 2021
Decision date:	16 December 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph 77 – 78
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – conspiracy to commit serious indictable offence – offender conspired to break-in and steal property from a targeted home – consideration of offender’s drug addiction – prospects of rehabilitation – Bugmy principles
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 111, 112 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A
Cases Cited:	Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Pettersen v R [2013] NSWCCA 20 R vHaidar [2004] NSWCCA 350 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R vMcNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R vPearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 R vSukkar [2011] NSWCCA 140 The Queen v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32 The Queen v LK (2010) 241 CLR 177 Tyler v R (2007) 173 A Crim R 438
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Peter Knight (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Doyle for the offender Mr B Ng (solicitor advocate) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) David Ryan Legal for the offender
File Number(s):	2021/82831
Publication restriction:	Nil