District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Missingham [2024] NSWDC 512 Hearing dates: 18 October 2024 Date of orders: 31 October 2024 Decision date: 31 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full-time custodial order. See [68]-[70]
Catchwords: Robbery in company; application of guideline judgment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Foaiaulima v R (2020) 285 A Crim R 222; [2020] NSWCCA 270
Hiron v R [2018] NSWCCA 10
KT v R (2008) 2008 A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51
Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244
Lowe v the Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Marshall v R [2024] NSWCCA 194
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
Category: Sentence Parties: Luke Missingham (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms M Cusack (the offender)
Mr G Kidd (the Crown)
Mr G Gallagher (the offender)
Ms O’Bryan (the Crown)
File Number(s): 2022/326188 Publication restriction: Nil.
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
On 4 July 2024 the offender pleaded not guilty to Count 3 on an Indictment as follows:-
“(3) On or about 12 February 2022, at North Gosford in the State of New South Wales, while in the company of Brock Pearson, “RS”, Darius Bagang, Ethan Gualdi and each other, robbed Brandon Alamango of cash and a gold watch, the property of Brandon Alamango.”
-
On 17 July 2024 the jury delivered a verdict of guilty. Count 3 is an offence pursuant to s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the CA”) and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period prescribed.
-
The offender is to be sentenced in accordance with the following facts derived from the jury verdict. On 11 February 2022 the offender was drinking at a hotel in Newcastle with Brock Pearson, Bailey Steele and Hayden Taylor. Pearson was a drug dealer who had been trying to contact Jesse Tarasenko about what was claimed to be a drug debt. The evidence established that Pearson and Tarasenko had entered into an arrangement in January 2022 for Tarasenko to sell cocaine on behalf of Pearson following which he was to pay Pearson for the cocaine by delivering it to an associate, RS who lived closer to Tarasenko. The evidence established that Tarasenko was avoiding Pearson and not responding to his phone calls and text messages.
-
On the same night RS was attending a meeting of the Nomads OMCG in Sydney as a prospective member. He had told another member about the alleged drug debt and was instructed by the Sergeant-at-Arms to travel to Terrigal with two other prospective members, Ethan Gualdi and Darius Bagang, to mete out severe punishment to Tarasenko. The three men then travelled from Sydney to Terrigal at the same time that the offender was travelling in Pearson’s car with the two other men…
Continue reading R v Missingham
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Missingham [2024] NSWDC 512
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 512
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the principles outlined in guideline judgments for similar offences. It assessed the severity of the crime, the role of Missingham in the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court also examined the offender's criminal history, background, and prospects for rehabilitation. In doing so, the court balanced the need for punishment with the goal of rehabilitation and the protection of the community.
After carefully considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary. The court found that the offence was serious, and that Missingham's involvement warranted a significant punishment. The court also noted that the sentence should serve as a deterrent to others who might commit similar offences. In light of these considerations, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence on Missingham, with specific details outlined in the judgment from paragraphs [68] to [70].
Orders
Orders of the court
Full-time custodial order. See [68]-[70]
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.