R v Newbold - [2021] NSWDC 608

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Newbold [2021] NSWDC 608
Hearing dates: 21 May 2021
Date of orders: 21 May 2021
Decision date: 21 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of three years, nine months with a non-parole period of 30 months: at [50].

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation – in company
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — RehabilitationSENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Revocation of parole
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence— Establishing relevant matters — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Boney v R [2008] NSWCCA 165
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130
R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Lee Newbold (Offender)
Representation:
Ms C Ervin (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr Z Khan (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2020/161040

Judgment

Lee Newbold, aged 34, appears for sentence having pleaded guilty in an early opportunity justifying a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment, to an offence contrary to s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 of attempting to take or detain with intent to commit a serious indictable offence in company. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.
The purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 must be considered, and the maximum penalty for this offence is of course an important yardstick in the sentencing process.
A full-time custodial sentence is required, as conceded by Mr Khan, of counsel for the offender as such it is unnecessary for me to consider any alternatives. T
The commencement date of the term of imprisonment is complicated somewhat slightly by his previous period in custody, namelya term of nine years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and two months, commencing on 18 March 2010 for aggravated sexual assault in company, occurring in September 2009. He was released to parole on 17 May 2017 but while on parole, he failed to report as required and his parole was revoked. A warrant was issued for his arrest on 20 March 2019. The warrant was not executed until his arrest for these offences on 29 May 2020 and it was then that the period of almost six months of unexpired parole to date from the revocation of parole to the notional end of the sentence was to be served.…

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 Newbold

Details

AGLC: R v Newbold [2021] NSWDC 608
Case: [2021] NSWDC 608
Decision Date: 21 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Newbold, was convicted for a violent offence and was brought before the court for sentencing. The circumstances of the offence involved detaining a person for advantage in company, which carries an element of aggravation. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflects the nature and gravity of the crime while also considering various mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the maximum penalty for the offence, the objective seriousness, and the moral culpability of the defendant. The court also had to consider Newbold's plea of guilty, his rehabilitation prospects, and any special circumstances such as mental illness. The defendant's history of parole revocation was another critical factor for the court to weigh in its sentencing decision.

The court thoroughly examined the aggravating and mitigating factors. It acknowledged Newbold's plea of guilty and his potential for rehabilitation, but also highlighted the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence. After careful deliberation, the court determined an appropriate term of imprisonment of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of 30 months. This decision was aimed at balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of three years, nine months with a non-parole period of 30 months: at [50].

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 Newbold [2021] NSWDC 608
Hearing dates:	21 May 2021
Date of orders:	21 May 2021
Decision date:	21 May 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of three years, nine months with a non-parole period of 30 months: at [50].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Detain for advantage — Circumstances of aggravation – in company SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — RehabilitationSENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Revocation of parole SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence— Establishing relevant matters — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Boney v R [2008] NSWCCA 165 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Lee Newbold (Offender)
Representation:	Ms C Ervin (Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr Z Khan (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2020/161040