R v Lineham (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWDC 311

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lineham (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 311
Hearing dates:14 October 2016
Date of orders: 18 November 2016
Decision date: 18 November 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

The offender is directed to report to the office of Community Corrections at Leichhardt within 7 days for assessment of his suitability for intensive correction in the community pursuant to s 69(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Catchwords: SENTENCE – assault police occasioning actual bodily harm – deemed supply of ecstasy – deemed supply of cocaine – extra-curial punishment – whether intensive correction order available alternative to full time imprisonment
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5(1), 21A, 24(a), 53A(1), 54B, 67(1), and 69(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 60(2)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 3(1), 25, 29(a) and 32(1)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 2 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 515
Bonwick v R [2010] NSWCCA 177
Douar v R [2005] NSWCCA 455
EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
Engelbrecht v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCA 290
Forti v R [2016] NSWCCA 127
Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6
Page v R (2008) 49 MVR 407; [2008] NSWCC 26
R v Daetz; R v Wilson 139 A Crim 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216
R v Ball [2013] NSWCCA 126
R v Barber [2004] NSWCCA 153
R v Cheikh; R v Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Edigarov (2002) 125 A Crim R 551; [2001] NSWCCA 436
R v JCW (2000) 112 A Crim 466; [2000] NSWCCA 209
R v Jouayde [2003] NSWCCA 240
R v Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441
R v Lineham [2016] NSWDC 247
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
Scott v R [2010] NSWCCA 103
Siganto v R (1998) 194 CLR 656
Silvano v R (2008) 184 A Crim R 593; [2008] NSWCCA 118
Valenti v R [2016] NSWCCA 17
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mr Stuart Lineham (Offender)
Representation: Ms M Fleeton (Crown)
Mr P English (Offender)
File Number(s):2014/149481
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. On 11 August 2016, the offender, Stuart Lineham, was arraigned before me on four matters, pursuant to an indictment dated the same day, as follows:-

  1. On 17 May 2014 at Surry Hills in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely cocaine;

  2. On 17 May 2014 at Surry Hills in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely 3,4-methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine;

  3. On 17 May 2014 at Surry Hills in the State of New South Wales, did assault Victoria Turner, a police officer, while in the execution of her duty, and by that assault did occasion actual bodily harm to the said Victoria Turner; and

  4. On 17 May 2014 at Surry Hills in the State of…

Continue reading R v Lineham (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lineham (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 311
Case
[2016] NSWDC 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Lineham, the defendant was charged with assaulting police officers, causing actual bodily harm, and was also deemed to have supplied ecstasy and cocaine. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The defendant's legal team argued that the court should consider an alternative to full-time imprisonment, such as an intensive correction order, given the defendant's circumstances.

The court was required to determine whether an intensive correction order could be a suitable alternative to full-time imprisonment for the defendant. The legal issues revolved around the sentencing options available under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the principles guiding the court in choosing between different sentencing options. The court also needed to consider the defendant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offence, and the need to deter and rehabilitate the offender.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the nature of the offences committed by the defendant. It was noted that the defendant had a previous criminal history, but the court found that an intensive correction order could provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and deterrence without the need for full-time imprisonment. The court held that an intensive correction order could be a suitable alternative to full-time imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's circumstances and the need to balance the interests of the community and the offender. The court directed the defendant to report to Community Corrections for an assessment of his suitability for an intensive correction order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is directed to report to the office of Community Corrections at Leichhardt within 7 days for assessment of his suitability for intensive correction in the community pursuant to s 69(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

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.