R v Lonesborough - [2020] NSWDC 825

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lonesborough [2020] NSWDC 825
Hearing dates: 8 October 2020
Decision date: 08 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period 1 year 8 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME - detain a person with intent to obtain an advantage aggravated by causing actual bodily harm
SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea - mentally ill offender - prior failures to deal with mental health and substance abuse problems - background of disadvantage – treatment plan available

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900

Cases Cited:
Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

Category: Sentence
Parties: Steven Matthew Lonesborough (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms A Kerr (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00319142

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Introduction

Steven Lonesborough is for sentence today for an offence of detaining a person with intent to obtain an advantage aggravated by his causing actual bodily harm to his victim. He acknowledged his guilt in the Local Court. The offence, pursuant to s 86(2)(b) Crimes Act1900, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. That maximum is one guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.
Lonesborough comes to the Court acknowledging the harm that he caused his victim and expressing, through his letter to me, appropriate remorse. He comes to the Court with a plan for his rehabilitation on release. It is set out in a letter to the Court from his sister, who currently works with other Aboriginal people who have alcohol and other drug and mental health issues. She and the offender have had an opportunity to discuss his future. She acknowledges, frankly, that until those discussions he had not demonstrated any hope or plans for changing a life that had been blighted by mental health and drug issues.
He professes now to want to change his ways, accept the problems that he’s had and do something about them. The change in him between when he committed this offence on 12 October 2019 and today is reflected in all the material before me. In particular, his letter, his sister’s letter, and a report from Dr Richard Furst, a respected consultant forensic psychiatrist. Dr Furst concludes:

"After a thorough and professional examination of Mr Lonesborough, ... he has a major mental illness in the form of bipolar affective disorder, complicated by long-term trauma-related and abandonment-related emotional issues in the form of borderline personality traits and the destabilising effects of drug use over the last two decades…
It is borne out by the facts before me that he was, at the time he committed the offence, acutely psychotic and paranoid. He is now stable in mood…

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 Lonesborough

Details

AGLC: R v Lonesborough [2020] NSWDC 825
Case: [2020] NSWDC 825
Decision Date: 08 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with detaining a person with intent to obtain an advantage, aggravated by causing actual bodily harm. The case came before the court for sentencing. The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the crime committed, taking into account the early guilty plea, the appellant's mental health issues, and prior failures to deal with these issues, as well as their background of disadvantage, and the availability of a treatment plan.

The court acknowledged the appellant's early guilty plea, which typically warrants a discount in sentence. However, the court also considered the gravity of the offence, which involved significant violence and the detention of a person for an extended period. The appellant's mental health issues and prior substance abuse problems were noted, as was their background of disadvantage. The court also considered the availability of a treatment plan, which offered the possibility of rehabilitation. The court weighed these factors against the need for general deterrence and denunciation, ultimately determining that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. The court sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months.

The court's decision balanced the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances and the nature of the offence. The sentence reflects the gravity of the crime, while also providing the appellant with the opportunity to address their mental health and substance abuse issues through the available treatment plan.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period 1 year 8 months.

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 Lonesborough [2020] NSWDC 825
Hearing dates:	8 October 2020
Decision date:	08 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period 1 year 8 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - detain a person with intent to obtain an advantage aggravated by causing actual bodily harm SENTENCING – relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea - mentally ill offender - prior failures to deal with mental health and substance abuse problems - background of disadvantage – treatment plan available
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900
Cases Cited:	Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Steven Matthew Lonesborough (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms A Kerr (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00319142