R v McHughes, Cecil

Case [2009] NSWDC 383
CITATION: R v McHughes, Cecil [2009] NSWDC 383
HEARING DATE(S): 05/09/2008, 05/12/2008, 13/01/2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 13 January 2009
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION: Convicted. Section 11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, bail granted. Proceedings adjourned for 12 months. Dates to be set for 3 monthly return to court with progress reports.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing- break, enter and steal in circumstances of aggravation - owner absent for several days - safe, coin collection and other items stolen - gang of juveniles and young men - home ransacked - offenders ignorant of real value or merit of coin collection - offence occurs during parole period for similar offence - twenty-one year old - serious intellectual deficits - diminished language skills - unskolled other than at sport - serious drug and alcohol issues - in danger of social isolation - serious intellectual impairments makes offender unsuitabale candidate for deterrence and hence application of standard non-parole period - youth of offender brings him within exception to standard non-parole period (R v Hearne applied) - compulsory rehabilitation (Griffiths v The Queen applied).
CASES CITED: R v Gladue [1999] 1SCR 688 [80]
R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v David Nicholls [2008] NSWDC 123
Brewster [1998] 1 CrAp.R 220 at 225
R v Hearne (2007) 124 AcrR 457
Griffith v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
PARTIES: Regina
Cecil Damien McHughes
FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/00003514
COUNSEL: Defence: H White
SOLICITORS: Crown: Mr. J May


JUDGMENT

1. On 3 July 2007 John George, a resident of Brewarrina, locked and secured his home at 16 Tarrion Street, Brewarrina before heading off to Lismore. Mr George left the house under the periodic supervision of a friend.

2. About 10.30 on Thursday, 5 July a young person RB smashed the kitchen window of 16 Tarrion Street. Some time later this offender entered the premises through the kitchen window, forced the rear door open allowing for entry of the young person RB and another young person, the brother of him, CB plus a co-offender David Nicholls into the house. All went into the kitchen area. After a short time the co-offender Nicholls left with the yellow Leisure brand esky. He left the premises with CB. At the time Nicholls left, the offender and RB remained in the house searching for items of value.

3. The offender and RB completely ransacked the premises, scattering items throughout the kitchen, lounge room and master bedroom whilst searching for items of value. The offender and RB took a number of items from various locations from within the house. The most significant of these being a heavy grey coloured CMI wall safe located in the master bedroom. The two carried the safe out of the house and took it to the backyard.

4. On 18 June 2008 Cecil McHughes began the process of being held accountable for his criminal conduct of nearly a year earlier…

Continue reading R v McHughes, Cecil

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McHughes, Cecil [2009] NSWDC 383
Case
[2009] NSWDC 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Cecil McHughes, was charged with breaking, entering, and stealing from a residence in aggravated circumstances. The offence occurred while the homeowner was away for several days, during which time a safe, a coin collection, and other items were stolen. The home was left in disarray, and the theft was carried out by a group of juveniles and young men. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for McHughes, considering the nature of the offence, his background, and his potential for rehabilitation. The legal issues included the applicability of the standard non-parole period and the potential for compulsory rehabilitation due to McHughes' intellectual deficits, drug and alcohol issues, and social isolation.

The court examined the factors relevant to sentencing, including the aggravated nature of the offence, the significant damage to the property, and the presence of a group. McHughes, who was twenty-one years old at the time of the offence, had a history of similar criminal conduct and was on parole for a previous offence when this crime was committed. The court also considered McHughes' intellectual impairments, which made him unsuitable for deterrence, and his youth, which brought him within the exception to the standard non-parole period. The court applied the principles from R v Hearne and Griffiths v The Queen to determine that compulsory rehabilitation was an appropriate sentence. The court held that the standard non-parole period was not applicable due to McHughes' intellectual impairments and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The court convicted McHughes and granted bail under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The proceedings were adjourned for twelve months, with the defendant required to return to court every three months for progress reports. The court's decision focused on McHughes' need for rehabilitation and the exceptional circumstances of the case, rather than imposing a traditional custodial sentence. The outcome reflected the court's consideration of McHughes' background, his intellectual impairments, and the potential for rehabilitation in a less restrictive environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted. Section 11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, bail granted. Proceedings adjourned for 12 months. Dates to be set for 3 monthly return to court with progress reports.

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.