R v Madden - [2010] NSWDC 337

CITATION: R v MADDEN [2010] NSWDC 337

HEARING DATE(S): 5 November 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 5 November 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years. The offender is referred to the Drug Court for determination as to his suitability for a compulsory drug treatment order.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence - In company - Larceny

CASES CITED: Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606

PARTIES: The Crown
Trent Madden

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/267599

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Services

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Trent Madden appears for sentence today after having pleaded guilty at an early stage to an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence in company. The offence was committed on 16 March 2008 but Mr Madden only appears for sentence today, 5 November 2010, that delay primarily being due to the length of time between when the Division of Analytical Laboratories received relevant material and when they notified the police of a match between the blood stain they tested and the DNA of this offender. In the meantime the offender had served a sentence for an unrelated matter and had been released only shortly before being arrested for this matter.

2 I have begun these remarks by referring to his circumstances because of the injustice that can be caused to an offender when inadequate resources are provided to the Division of Analytical Laboratories, such that offenders stand to be sentenced for offences they have committed some considerable time before. In some cases, although this is not one of them, offenders are completely different people, having rehabilitated themselves by the time they stand for sentence for an old offence. I have borne in mind to a significant extent that Mr Madden stands for sentence today for an offence committed a fair while ago.

3 As I mentioned that offence was committed on 16 March 2008. On that day, the offender, together with an unknown female companion, smashed their way into the Australia Post office at about 10pm. Whilst inside they removed a large number of items, hard drives, printers, SIM cards, games, as well as a number of tickets to the Royal Easter Show. When police attended they discovered a piece of paper containing a red/brown stain. It was labelled “set up guide” and found behind the counter of the Australia Post office near a security door. It was this item which was later analysed by DAL and the offender’s DNA found upon it. It appears that the Crown relied exclusively on that DNA evidence in proving that the offender was one of the two people involved in the offence, with the faces of the people in the CCTV footage obtained from the shop being insufficiently clear to prosecute. As I mentioned…

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 Madden

Details

AGLC: R v Madden [2010] NSWDC 337
Case: [2010] NSWDC 337
Decision Date: 5 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Daniel Madden, the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence following a conviction for aggravated break, enter and commit a serious indictable offence, specifically larceny, committed in company. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate level of punishment for the offence and determining the suitability of the offender for a compulsory drug treatment order. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and the circumstances in which the crime was committed. Additionally, the court was required to examine whether the offender met the criteria for a compulsory drug treatment order under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

The court noted the seriousness of the offence, which involved breaking and entering a premises with others, committing a significant theft, and the presence of aggravating factors such as the offender's criminal history and the fact that the crime was committed in company. The court also considered the offender's background, including his history of drug use and involvement in criminal activities. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence involving imprisonment was necessary, taking into account the offender's potential for rehabilitation and the need to protect the community. The court sentenced Madden to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years, and referred him to the Drug Court for an assessment of his suitability for a compulsory drug treatment order.

In conclusion, the court's decision was based on the need to appropriately punish the offender for his crime while also considering the potential for rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The sentence imposed reflected the gravity of the offence and the offender's criminal history, and the referral to the Drug Court aimed to address the underlying issues that contributed to the offender's criminal behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years. The offender is referred to the Drug Court for determination as to his suitability for a compulsory drug treatment order.

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.

CITATION:	R v MADDEN [2010] NSWDC 337
HEARING DATE(S):	5 November 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	5 November 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of two and a half years and a head sentence of four and a half years. The offender is referred to the Drug Court for determination as to his suitability for a compulsory drug treatment order.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence - In company - Larceny
CASES CITED:	Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606
PARTIES:	The Crown Trent Madden
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/267599
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Services