R v Mather

Case [2019] NSWDC 210

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mather [2019] NSWDC 210
Hearing dates: 28 May 2019
Date of orders: 28 May 2019
Decision date: 28 May 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

2 year sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order

Catchwords: CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under S 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
SZ v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 19
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Leanne Mather (Offender)
Representation:

Mr Howell (Crown)
Ms Davids (Offender)

  Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Chandler Legal (Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/00295040
Publication restriction: Confidential portion of this judgement has been redacted in this judgement and published in a separate judgement, [2019] NSWDC 211

EX TEMPORE Judgement (REVISED)

  1. ...(recording equipment not turned on).. were issued at court in respect of it and I would expect there to be no action taken in any event.

  2. As noted above the recording equipment was not activated until shortly after I commenced delivery of my ex tempore judgement earlier today. The judgement was transmitted to me as a matter or priority to be perfected and available to the parties in a trial to commence on 29 May 2019 and in which the offender is to be called as a witness.

  3. I have reconstructed the preliminary portion of these reasons drawing upon the material before me.

  4. Leanne Mather pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was thereupon committed for sentence for an offence contrary to s 112(1) Crimes Act 1900 expressed thus: between 10:30pm on 24 April 2016 and 6:10 am on 25 April 2016 at Melrose Park, did break and enter the dwelling house of the family White and did steal adults and children/s wallets containing credit cards, handbags and a lap top computer the property of the family. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years. There is no standard non-parole period for the purposes of Part 4 Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

  5. She has adhered to the plea of guilty and asks that the court take into account nine offences of obtain property by deception contrary to s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years, although there is no doubt that these would have otherwise been dealt with summarily exposing the offender to a maximum penalty in each case of imprisonment for two years and a fine represented by 100 penalty units.

  6. The additional offences will be taken into account in accordance with the judgement of the Chief Justice in Attorney General’s Application under S 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518. Although she has avoided separate punishment for these offences she has provided utility for which she must have benefit. The additional offences will require an increase…

Continue reading R v Mather

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mather [2019] NSWDC 210
Case
[2019] NSWDC 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mather involved the defendant, Mather, who was charged with breaking and entering a premises with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Mather was alleged to have unlawfully entered a commercial property with the intention of stealing a large quantity of goods, amounting to a serious indictable offence under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court was tasked with determining Mather's guilt on the charge and, if found guilty, to impose an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether Mather's actions constituted the offence of breaking and entering with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. The court considered the elements of the offence, including whether Mather had the intent to commit a serious indictable offence at the time of the entry and whether the entry was unlawful. The court also examined the evidence presented, including any admissions by Mather, the circumstances of the break-in, and the nature and value of the goods targeted. Additionally, the court needed to weigh any mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court found Mather guilty of the offence. The court accepted the prosecution's evidence that Mather had planned and executed the break-in with the intent to steal goods of significant value. The court noted that Mather had a history of similar offences and had shown a lack of remorse. After considering the totality of the circumstances, the court determined that an intensive corrections order was the most appropriate sentence. This order was designed to rehabilitate Mather and reduce the likelihood of reoffending, rather than merely punishing him. The court concluded that a two-year sentence of imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order, was appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

2 year sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Corrections 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.