R v McCutchen

Case [2022] NSWDC 214


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v McCutchen [2022] NSWDC 214
Hearing dates: 13 May 2022
Date of orders: 17 June 2022
Decision date: 17 June 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81].

Catchwords:

Break and enter and commit serious indictable offence.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

Care v R [2022] NSWCCA 101

Haak v R [2022] NSWCCA 28

Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169

Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162

Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18

Veen v R (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1998] HCA 14

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mark McCutchen (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C. Dobraszczyk (Crown)
D. Stewart (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/64152
Publication restriction: Nil.

remarks on sentence

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of one count of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act. The offender entered a plea of guilty to the offence on 18 January 2022 and at the sentence hearing on 13 May 2022 he adhered to his plea of guilty.

  2. The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period prescribed of 5 years imprisonment.

  3. The offender was born on 2 August 1979 and is now 42 years of age. He has had a complex criminal history and has spent a large amount of his life in custody both as a juvenile and as an adult. That history is referred to below, however, it is agreed between the parties that following his arrest on the index offence on 17 October 2018 by way of a future Court Attendance Notice, since 6 March 2019 he has spent 228 days in custody referable to the index offence, as a maximum.

  4. The offence, which occurred on 8 October 2018, was committed whilst the offender was on parole, however that parole was revoked on 4 November 2018 in respect of other matters. The offence was committed in company of a co-offender, Daniel Neal, who also pleaded guilty to the same offence.

The sentence hearing

  1. The sentence hearing took place on 13 May 2022. Exhibit A was the Crown Sentence Summary, which included an Agreed Statement of Facts which may be summarised as follows. At 3:04am on 8 October 2018, the co-offender approached the front of a retail store known as the Blue Mountains Running Co, and looked inside for a few seconds before walking away. At about 3:42am, the offender and co-offender arrived in a stolen Skoda motor vehicle registration number NBP-48K. This is the subject of an offence on a s 166 certificate, namely, be carried in conveyance taken without consent of owner pursuant to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.

  2. The offenders got out of the vehicle, and the co-offender forced the front door of…

Continue reading R v McCutchen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McCutchen [2022] NSWDC 214
Case
[2022] NSWDC 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McCutchen involved the defendant, McCutchen, who was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling and committing a serious indictable offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. McCutchen pleaded guilty to the charges, and the court proceeded to determine the appropriate sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate penalty for the offence committed by McCutchen. The court considered various factors including the nature and circumstances of the offence, McCutchen's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for such offences under Queensland law.

The court examined the gravity of the offence, recognising the seriousness of breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable crime. It also took into account McCutchen’s prior criminal record, which included multiple instances of similar offending behaviour. The court balanced these factors against the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was warranted to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to provide a deterrent effect. The court further detailed the specific orders and sentence in the judgment at [81].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81].

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.