R v Levvell

Case [2021] NSWDC 518


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Levvell [2021] NSWDC 518
Hearing dates: 20 August 2021, 23 September 2021
Decision date: 23 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Three year aggregate sentence to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. For orders see [94]

Catchwords:

CRIME - Detain for advantage in company - assault

SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea - multiple offenders - role of offender – genuine grievance against victim - period of detention – serious threats - victim escaped – victim caught - victim assaulted - first offender – deprived background - moral culpability – significant efforts toward rehabilitation - strong subjective case - is full time custodial sentence the only option - impact of COVID -19 - need for retribution - general deterrence - victim vindication

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017(NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58

Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96

Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571: [2013] HCA 37

Chenhallv R [2021] VSCA 175

Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cross v R [2019] NSWCCA 280

Davis v R [2006] NSWCCA 392

EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36

Engert v R (1995) 84 A Crim R 67

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520

Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157

Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169

Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109

Kennedy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 260

KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

Mbele v R [2021] NSWCCA 182

Mourtada v R [2021] NSWCCA 211

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39

Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600: [2013] HCA 38

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

Pullen v R [2018] NSWCCA 264

R v Anforth [2003] NSWCCA 222

R v Austin [2021] NSWDC 440

R v AWF (2000) 2 VR 1; [2000] VSCA 172

R v Colvin (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 494

R v Dodd [1991] 57 A Crim R 349

R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510

R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Lattouf (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1996

R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

R v Mitchell [2007] NSWCCA 296

R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183

R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264

R v Rayment [2010] NSWCCA 85

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47

R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

R…

Continue reading R v Levvell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Levvell [2021] NSWDC 518
Case
[2021] NSWDC 518
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Levvell, the defendant faced charges arising from a series of incidents involving assault and holding a person for advantage in company. The case was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court. The defendant was involved in a complex situation where he detained an individual for advantage in a company setting, and subsequently assaulted the victim when the latter managed to escape and was subsequently caught.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering a multitude of factors. These included the defendant's early guilty plea, the presence of multiple offenders, the defendant's role in the offence, any genuine grievances against the victim, the period of detention, the seriousness of the threats made, the victim's escape and subsequent re-capture, and the overall moral culpability of the defendant. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's background, efforts towards rehabilitation, and the potential impact of COVID-19 on the sentencing decision. The balance between retribution, general deterrence, and the vindication of the victim's rights also formed part of the sentencing considerations.

Upon weighing these factors, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was not the only appropriate option. Given the defendant's first-time offence, deprived background, and significant efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a three-year aggregate sentence to be served through an intensive correctional order. This decision was influenced by the strong subjective case for a non-custodial approach, the need for retribution, and the overall deterrence and vindication considerations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Three year aggregate sentence to be served by way of an intensive correctional order. For orders see [94]

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.