R v Mika - [2015] NSWDC 321

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MIKA [2015] NSWDC 321
Hearing dates: 17/04/2015
Decision date: 17 April 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Count 1: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, robbery, intentionally or recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm, whilst on conditional liberty, special circumstances, presentence custody, general and personal deterrence, mental impairment, taking into account other terms of imprisonment.
Legislation Cited: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107
R v Israil [2002] NSWCC 255
R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA)
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Junior Mika - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Shaw - Crown
Ms Jardin - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Rebecca McMahon Lawyer - Offender

File Number(s): 2013/00257904

sentence

HIS HONOUR: Just stand up Mr Mika. My practice is to tell people in advance what sentence is to be imposed. In your case I propose to impose a sentence of six years imprisonment. I propose to backdate that sentence to 25 September 2013 and I propose to fix a non-parole period of three years. You will be eligible for release to parole on 24 September 2016 on my calculation. So you will have a further 18 months to serve in custody before you are eligible for parole. Just take a seat and I will give my reasons.
The prisoner Junior Mika today appears for sentence in relation to an offence in respect of which he was found guilty by a jury on, the date on the indictment being 25 July 2014. The prisoner was arraigned before a jury panel in respect of two charges. Count 1, the count for which he now is for sentence after a verdict of guilty by the guilty was a count alleging that he at Potts Point did rob David Schmikli of certain property namely an amount of money and personal items the property of that person and immediately before the robbery intentionally or recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm upon that person. This is an offence contrary to s 95(1) Crimes Act 1900 it carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
There was a further charge brought against the prisoner at the trial that he on the same date at the same place did assault Stephen Riley who was a witness in the case. The prisoner was acquitted of that charge. There is no inconsistency between the two verdicts of the jury bearing in mind the different issues for consideration by the jury.
The facts in the matter are in relation to the assault that whilst it was properly charged, it was a live issue for the jury as to…

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 Mika

Details

AGLC: R v Mika [2015] NSWDC 321
Case: [2015] NSWDC 321
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Mika, was convicted of robbery with the infliction of grievous bodily harm and sentenced by the court. The nature of the dispute was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had committed the offence while on conditional liberty. The court was required to weigh various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the defendant's history, and the impact of the crime on the victim, in determining the sentence. The court also considered the special circumstances of the case, such as the defendant's mental impairment and the length of time he had spent in presentence custody.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate application of sentencing principles in cases where the offender commits a serious crime while on conditional liberty, and the need to balance general and personal deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation. The court was tasked with ensuring that the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for deterrence. The court had to consider whether the defendant's mental impairment should be taken into account in the sentencing process, and how this factor should be weighed against other relevant considerations.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was a term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years. In reaching this decision, the court considered the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's history of offending, and the impact of the crime on the victim. The court also took into account the special circumstances of the case, including the defendant's mental impairment and the length of time he had spent in presentence custody. The court emphasised the need for general and personal deterrence, and the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence. The court also noted that the defendant's mental impairment should be taken into account in the sentencing process, but that this factor should be weighed against other relevant considerations.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of three years. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for deterrence. The court also noted that the defendant's mental impairment should be taken into account in the sentencing process, but that this factor should be weighed against other relevant considerations. The court concluded that the sentence it had determined was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of 3 years.

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 MIKA [2015] NSWDC 321
Hearing dates:	17/04/2015
Decision date:	17 April 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Count 1: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of 3 years.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, robbery, intentionally or recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm, whilst on conditional liberty, special circumstances, presentence custody, general and personal deterrence, mental impairment, taking into account other terms of imprisonment.
Legislation Cited:	Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107 R v Israil [2002] NSWCC 255 R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA) R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Junior Mika - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Shaw - Crown Ms Jardin - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Rebecca McMahon Lawyer - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/00257904