R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw - [2019] NSWDC 848

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw [2019] NSWDC 848
Hearing dates: 29 November 2019
Decision date: 29 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Mark Chambers: Aggregate sentence of four years. Non‑parole period of two years and six months.
Raynor Earnshaw: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Take and detain – multiple offenders.
SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea – two offenders – differing roles – victim impact – difficult family histories – unstable lives – periods in custody – drug use – risk of future offending – both will need assistance to adjust to and learn to live a normal community life.
Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Mark Chambers (the offender)
Raynor Earnshaw (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for Chambers)
Mr A Booker (for Earnshaw)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for Chambers)
McAneny Lawyers (for Earnshaw)
Ms E Brown for the Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): Mark Chambers 2019/00040381;Raynor Earnshaw 2019/00116034.

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Introduction

Mark Chambers and Raynor Jamieson Earnshaw are for sentence today for the offence of specially aggravated take and detain with intent to intimidate Mr Fitzpatrick; s 86(3) Crimes Act1900. The circumstances that bring this offence into the most serious category is that the offences occurred while each was in company with each other and others and that actual bodily harm was occasioned to Mr Fitzpatrick.
An offence pursuant to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 carries the maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. That maximum penalty is one of many guides to the exercise of my sentencing discretion in this matter. I will also be sentencing Chambers for an offence on a s 166, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 certificate of intentionally destroying property by fire, the car used during the principal offence: s 195(1)(b) Crimes Act: maximum available penalty 12 months imprisonment.
The offences occurred on 26 April 2018. Each of the offenders for sentence acknowledged and accepted their guilt in the Local Court. Those early pleas of guilty require a reduction of 25% of the otherwise appropriate sentence. I have rounded that percentage; sentencing should not be a strictly arithmetical exercise. The pleas of guilty can also be taken into account as practical demonstrations of remorse and regret for the behaviour.
I have had put before me a body of material on behalf of both offenders which makes a compelling case for leniency, and to which I will soon refer. Having read and considered all of the material, I do not believe…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWDC 848
Decision Date: 29 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw, the court was called to determine the appropriate sentences for Chambers and Earnshaw, who had been found guilty of various offences, including taking and detaining individuals. The defendants' actions had led to significant distress and fear among the victims, and the court was required to consider a range of mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the appropriate penalties.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in cases involving multiple offenders with differing roles in the offence, and the specific factors that should be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court considered the impact of the crimes on the victims, the defendants' backgrounds and personal circumstances, and the likelihood of the defendants reoffending. The court also took into account the early guilty pleas entered by both defendants, which resulted in a discount to their sentences.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant impact of the crimes on the victims, and the need to ensure that the sentences served as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar conduct. However, the court also recognised the difficult backgrounds and personal circumstances of the defendants, and the need to provide them with an opportunity to reintegrate into the community and lead law-abiding lives. The court ultimately determined that an aggregate sentence of four years for Chambers, with a non-parole period of two years and six months, and a sentence of one year and ten months for Earnshaw, with a non-parole period of one year and one month, was appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that both defendants would require assistance to adjust to and learn to live a normal community life, and that the sentences should reflect this need.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mark Chambers: Aggregate sentence of four years. Non‑parole period of two years and six months.

Raynor Earnshaw: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.

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 Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw [2019] NSWDC 848
Hearing dates:	29 November 2019
Decision date:	29 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Mark Chambers: Aggregate sentence of four years. Non‑parole period of two years and six months. Raynor Earnshaw: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Take and detain – multiple offenders. SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty plea – two offenders – differing roles – victim impact – difficult family histories – unstable lives – periods in custody – drug use – risk of future offending – both will need assistance to adjust to and learn to live a normal community life.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Mark Chambers (the offender) Raynor Earnshaw (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for Chambers) Mr A Booker (for Earnshaw) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for Chambers) McAneny Lawyers (for Earnshaw) Ms E Brown for the Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	Mark Chambers 2019/00040381;Raynor Earnshaw 2019/00116034.