R v Lawlis

Case [2024] NSWDC 418

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lawlis [2024] NSWDC 418
Hearing dates: 12 September 2024
Date of orders: 12 September 2024
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraphs [79]-[80]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – aggravated break and enter offence – statutory offences – parity principle

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(1)-(2), 154A(1), 154F

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5(1), 21A(2), 25D(2)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1

KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51

Marshall v R [2007] NSWCCA 24

R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
Mr Joel Lawlis (the Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Meade (Solicitor Advocate) for the ODPP
Mr E James for the Offender

Solicitors:
ODPP
Blaxland Law
File Number(s): 2022/00189292
Publication restriction: Nil

EX-TEMPORE REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. Mr Joel Lawlis, the offender, is before the Court following pleas of guilty to two counts of aggravated break and entering and committing a serious indictable offence, contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The two counts relate to different occasions, the first being at 5 Jervis Drive, Illawong on 10 November 2020 and the second being at 37 Watling Avenue, West Hoxton on 18 January 2021.

  2. For this offence the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment. The offence also carries a standard non-parole period of 5 years’ imprisonment.

  3. The offender also pleaded guilty to four related offences on a s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) certificate, these being:

  1. Seq 2: stealing a motor vehicle, contrary to s 154F of the Crimes Act (a Husqvarna TE3001-EK 235)

  2. Seq 3: stealing a motor vehicle, contrary to s 154F of the Crimes Act (a Yamaha YZ65)

  3. Seq 6: stealing a motor vehicle, contrary to s 154F of the Crimes Act (a blue Golf R ‘07MKR’)

  4. Seq 10: taking and driving conveyance without the owner’s consent, contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act (a 2017 Hyundai Elantra SR ‘DQM98M’)

  1. For the s 154F offence, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years; although when prosecuted in the Local Court, it is 2 years’ imprisonment. For the s 154A(1)(a) offence, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years. There was no standard non-parole period for these particular offences.

  2. The guilty pleas (which were adhered to in this hearing) were entered 10 days prior to the scheduled commencement of trial. The offender suggested that he might obtain a greater discount than that provided for under the statutory scheme. The Crown disagreed. I prefer the Crown’s submission noting the rather elaborately constructed, or calibrated, statutory regime. The offender is entitled to a 5% discount for the entry of the pleas (per s 25D(2)(b)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW)…

Continue reading R v Lawlis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lawlis [2024] NSWDC 418
Case
[2024] NSWDC 418
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a sentencing appeal brought by the respondent, Lawlis, who had been convicted of an aggravated break and enter offence. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia. Lawlis sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and failed to observe the principle of parity.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and whether it adhered to the principle of parity. The principle of parity requires that sentences imposed for similar offences be commensurate with each other. The court was required to determine if the sentence in this case was consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences.

The court examined the principle of parity and noted that while it is a fundamental principle of sentencing, it is not an absolute rule. The court emphasised that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion and that the principle of parity is but one of many factors to be considered. The court found that the primary judge had adequately considered the principle of parity and had not erred in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the primary judge. In addition, the court noted that the sentence was within the range of penalties prescribed by statute for the offence and that the primary judge had appropriately considered the aggravating factors present in this case. The court concluded that the sentence was just and appropriate and did not breach the principle of parity.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [79]-[80]

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.