R v Mulqueeney, Brody Paul Stuart - [2018] NSWDC 48

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MULQUEENEY, Brody Paul Stuart [2018] NSWDC 48
Hearing dates: 2 March 2018
Date of orders: 13 March 2018
Decision date: 13 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: His Honour Judge Lerve
Decision:
Term of imprisonment – see orders 76 and onward.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – deliberately set fire to another person – breach of s9 bond
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:
The Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Aslan [2014] NSWCCA 114
Betts v R [2015] NSWCCA 39
Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
Bourke [2010] NSWCCA 22
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
R v Elyard [2006] NSWCCA 43
DPP(Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hearne v R (2001) 123 A Crim R 451
Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45;
Locke v The Queen (2010) 207 A Crim R 34; [2010] NSWCCA 296
JM v The Queen (2012) 223 A Crim R 55; [2012] NSWCCA 83
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
McNaughton v R (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Mitchell & Gallagher v The Queen (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Ngati [2014] NSWCCA 125
Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89
Uriolla v R [2012] NSWCCA 95
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Brody Paul Stewart Mulqueeney
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Bailey for the Crown
Mr King for the offender
Solicitors:
Ms Y Wojcik for the Crown
Mr R Harrison for the offender

File Number(s): 2016/293737
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the victim.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 24 May 2017 the offender was committed for trial from the Local Court at Wagga Wagga in respect of one count of Cause Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and one count of Do Act with the Intent to Pervert the Course of Justice, contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act.
On 11 August 2017 the offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga District Court and pleaded guilty to one count on an indictment, namely that he “on 28 August 2016 at Lockhart in the State of New South Wales caused grievous bodily harm to [JH] with intent to cause grievous bodily harm”, contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The charge of Do Act with Intent to Pervert the Course of Justice, which for the sake of convenience I will refer to as the public justice offence, was placed on a Form 1 document.
The value of the discount for the utilitarian value of the plea was one of the issues that arose at the sentence hearing. The Crown maintained that the appropriate discount was 10%. Mr…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Mulqueeney, Brody Paul Stuart and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWDC 48
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brody Paul Stuart Mulqueeney was charged with arson and breaching a bond. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The key legal issues were the appropriate sentence for the crime of arson and whether there were any exceptional circumstances to reduce the sentence.

The court considered the gravity of the offence and the breach of the bond. The defendant's actions were premeditated and caused significant distress to the victim. The court noted the need to deter similar behaviour in the future. However, the court also considered the defendant’s background, including his young age and circumstances leading to the offence. The court balanced these factors against the severity of the crime.

After considering all the factors, the court decided that a term of imprisonment was necessary. The court found that while the offence was serious, the defendant's age and background warranted some leniency. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the need for punishment and deterrence, while also considering the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders, beginning at order 76, specified the term of imprisonment and any additional conditions. The court concluded that this sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment – see orders 76 and onward.

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 MULQUEENEY, Brody Paul Stuart [2018] NSWDC 48
Hearing dates:	2 March 2018
Date of orders:	13 March 2018
Decision date:	13 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	His Honour Judge Lerve
Decision:	Term of imprisonment – see orders 76 and onward.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – deliberately set fire to another person – breach of s9 bond
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Aslan [2014] NSWCCA 114 Betts v R [2015] NSWCCA 39 Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 Bourke [2010] NSWCCA 22 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 R v Elyard [2006] NSWCCA 43 DPP(Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Hearne v R (2001) 123 A Crim R 451 Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; Locke v The Queen (2010) 207 A Crim R 34; [2010] NSWCCA 296 JM v The Queen (2012) 223 A Crim R 55; [2012] NSWCCA 83 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 McNaughton v R (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 Mitchell & Gallagher v The Queen (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Ngati [2014] NSWCCA 125 Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89 Uriolla v R [2012] NSWCCA 95 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Brody Paul Stewart Mulqueeney
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Bailey for the Crown Mr King for the offender Solicitors: Ms Y Wojcik for the Crown Mr R Harrison for the offender
File Number(s):	2016/293737
Publication restriction:	No publication of the name of the victim.