R v Little - [2025] NSWDC 138

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LITTLE [2025] NSWDC 138
Hearing dates: 26 March 2025
Date of orders: 24 April 2025
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment – see paragraphs [74]-[79]

Catchwords:
CRIME – property offences – aggravated break and enter commit serious indictable offence - aggravated break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence - enter land with intent to commit serious indictable offence - enter building with intent to commit serious indictable offence
SENTENCE – multiple offences over a number of properties – juvenile co-offenders – past brain injury – no overt evidence of an intellectual disability, but deficits in executive functioning – principles in Bugmy enlivened – parity has little work to do in this case

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Tyson LITTLE
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Borchert for the Crown
Mr T Jackson for the Offender
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Tankards Law,

File Number(s): 2024/68203
Publication restriction: No

remarks on sentence

The offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 11 December 2024 and pleaded guilty to the following:

H80404743

Sequences 1, 4, and 5 – Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence (Larceny) contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900; and

Sequence 3 – Enter Land with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence namely larceny contrary to s 114(1)(d) of the Crimes Act; and

Sequences 6,15 and 16 – Aggravated Break and Enter with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence, contrary to s 113(2) of the Crimes Act; and

Sequences 21 and 22 – Enter Building in Company with Intent to Steal, contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act.

The offender adhered to his pleas of guilty at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 26 March 2025 and accordingly he is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty
The maximum penalty for each of the offences contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act is 20 years imprisonment. Parliament has specified a standard non-parole period of 5 years in respect of those offences. The maximum penalty for the offence contrary to s 114(1)(d) of the Crimes Act is 7 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for each of the offences contrary to s 113(2) of the Crimes Act is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for each of the offences contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act is 14 years imprisonment.
In addition, at the sentence hearing the offender pleaded guilty to two charges of Be Carried in Conveyance Taken Without the Consent of…

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 Little

Details

AGLC: R v Little [2025] NSWDC 138
Case: [2025] NSWDC 138
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Little, the court heard a case involving multiple aggravated break and enter offences committed across a number of properties. The defendant, Little, had been charged with a series of serious offences, including entering buildings and land with the intent to commit serious indictable offences. The case was heard in a higher court, where the defendant was tried as an adult due to the severity of the crimes committed. Little's co-offenders were juveniles, which complicated the sentencing considerations. Additionally, Little had a history of brain injury, which was taken into account during sentencing. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Little, considering the aggravating factors, the impact of the brain injury, and the principles set out in Bugmy.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the multiple offences, the juvenile status of the co-offenders, and Little's brain injury. The court also had to consider whether there were any mitigating factors that would impact the severity of the sentence. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to consider the defendant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles set out in Bugmy, which emphasise the importance of considering the unique circumstances of Indigenous defendants.

The court found that the aggravating factors of the case, including the multiple offences and the seriousness of the crimes, warranted a significant sentence. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors, including Little's brain injury and the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of some of the offences. The court found that the principles in Bugmy were enlivened, but that there was little room for parity in this case due to the severity of the offences. The court ultimately sentenced Little to an aggregate term of imprisonment, taking into account all of the relevant factors. The court's reasoning and outcome reflect a careful consideration of the legal principles and the unique circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment – see paragraphs [74]-[79]

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 LITTLE [2025] NSWDC 138
Hearing dates:	26 March 2025
Date of orders:	24 April 2025
Decision date:	24 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment – see paragraphs [74]-[79]
Catchwords:	CRIME – property offences – aggravated break and enter commit serious indictable offence - aggravated break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence - enter land with intent to commit serious indictable offence - enter building with intent to commit serious indictable offence SENTENCE – multiple offences over a number of properties – juvenile co-offenders – past brain injury – no overt evidence of an intellectual disability, but deficits in executive functioning – principles in Bugmy enlivened – parity has little work to do in this case
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Tyson LITTLE
Representation:	Counsel: Ms K Borchert for the Crown Mr T Jackson for the Offender Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Tankards Law,
File Number(s):	2024/68203
Publication restriction:	No