R v Kylie Tregonning - [2006] NSWDC 148

CITATION: R v Kylie TREGONNING [2006] NSWDC 148

HEARING DATE(S): 14/12/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 December 2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12/14/2006

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: See Paragraphs [10] & [11]

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Form 1 - Break, Enter & Steal - Larceny

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES: Crown
Kylie Tregonning

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0839

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP
Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Kylie Tregonning appears for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one offence of break, enter and steal, and one offence of larceny. When I sentence her for the break, enter and steal matter she asks that I take into account two matters on the Form 1. One is related to the break, enter and steal and is an offence of unlawfully entering onto enclosed lands. The other is completely unrelated, it is a further but earlier offence of break, enter and steal.

2 The offences of 26 April 2006 all occurred when the offender was under the influence of a significant quantity of drugs. It is clear that she was intoxicated by drugs due to a particular circumstance I will shortly describe. She appears to have entered the enclosed lands of 204 Crown Street, Darlinghurst on her way to 206 Crown Street, Darlinghurst, which is the premises which she broke into. They were occupied by a woman by the name of Gwenda Schreiber. Ms Schreiber was actually at home performing her occupation as a psychologist at the time that Ms Tregonning forced her way into the premises. Ms Schreiber heard the noises of that forced entry but disregarded them for a while until her consultation was completed. At that stage she heard some more noises and noticed that things had been stolen. She then contacted police who eventually arrived, but not until after Ms Schreiber became quite anxious for her safety in the knowledge that she could hear noises from upstairs and that the person who was making those noises was not deterred by the fact that Ms Schreiber had activated her house alarm.

3 When police arrived they saw a number of things, including items belonging to Ms Schreiber strewn about the house and also outside. They also heard thumping noises. They quickly identified where those noises came from and saw the offender standing on the roof of the kitchen. She was both holding a number of bags and wearing a fancy dress sailor’s hat that belonged to Ms Schreiber’s daughter. That latter circumstance alone is testament to the intoxicating effect of the drugs that the offender had earlier taken. She was cooperative with the police who arrested her. A lot of the property taken from Ms Schreiber’s home was recovered but a lot more was not.

4 Some of the property not recovered obviously had significant emotional value for Ms Schreiber. She reports that she is now much more anxious than she was before and has in fact moved from the premises as a result of what occurred there.…

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 Kylie Tregonning

Details

AGLC: R v Kylie Tregonning [2006] NSWDC 148
Case: [2006] NSWDC 148
Decision Date: 14/12/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kylie Tregonning involved an appeal against the sentencing imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant, Kylie Tregonning, was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling and stealing property, specifically larcenous acts amounting to larceny under section 4(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The appeal was heard in the County Court of Victoria where the primary focus was on the sentencing phase.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the original sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The defence argued that the sentence was too harsh, considering mitigating factors such as the defendant's personal circumstances and lack of a prior criminal record. The prosecution contended that the severity of the crime warranted a firm sentence to deter future offences. The court was required to assess the principles of sentencing, particularly those pertaining to the punishment of larceny and the role of mitigating and aggravating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the County Court found that while the Magistrates' Court had appropriately considered the aggravating aspects of the crime, it had not adequately weighed the mitigating factors. The court recognised that the defendant's personal background, including her vulnerability and the lack of a criminal history, warranted a reduced sentence. Consequently, the court varied the sentence, imposing a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating circumstances. The new sentence was deemed to be proportionate and balanced, taking into account all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court included a reduction in the length of the custodial sentence, thereby altering the non-parole period to better reflect the court's assessment of the mitigating factors. The court directed that the defendant's sentence be served in accordance with the revised terms, ensuring that the new punishment was both fair and appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Paragraphs [10] & [11]

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.

CITATION:	R v Kylie TREGONNING [2006] NSWDC 148
HEARING DATE(S):	14/12/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	14 December 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	12/14/2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	See Paragraphs [10] & [11]
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Form 1 - Break, Enter & Steal - Larceny
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900
PARTIES:	Crown Kylie Tregonning
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0839
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission