R v Nichols - [2016] NSWDC 91

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nichols [2016] NSWDC 91
Hearing dates: 08/02/2016
Decision date: 01 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Convicted. Referred for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Correction Order as a means of serving the sentence.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, detain a person for advantage in company, early plea, co-operation, remorse, objective seriousness of offending.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
R v Collett and Robson (unrep, 1979 NSWCCA)
R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA)
SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Veen (No. 2) v R (1988) 165 CLR 465
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown
William Ronald Nichols - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Pincott – Crown
Mr Walsh - Offender

File Number(s): 2014/125097

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Mr Nichols if you could stand up please I will tell you what orders I propose to make. Taking into account the discounts that I propose to give you for your pleas of guilty and the co-operation which I have calculated as a combined discount of 45% I propose to sentence you to 23 months imprisonment. That’s one year 11 months imprisonment, the starting point of the sentence taking into account the objective facts and the subjective matters or the mitigating factors and the like before the discount was three and a half years, three years six months. I propose not to at this stage impose a term of full-time custody. I propose to have you assessed for your suitability for an intensive correction order but I just want to make it abundantly clear to you that if you’re unsuitable, or ineligible, I do not propose to suspend the term of imprisonment. So you will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in relation to this matter of the full-time custody as the Crown has submitted and I don’t want to misrepresent the Crown’s submission was within the appropriate sentencing discretion of the court. I use those expressions in the context of the High Court judgment of Barbaro. You can take a seat.
The prisoner appeared before me in the February sittings of the Wagga Wagga District Court in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at what was, for want of a better description, a “super” callover of matters listed for disposal within the District Court sittings within the Riverina district, that is at Wagga Wagga, Griffith and Albury. Apparently the judge conducting that callover had a large number of matters, some matters he disposed of, some matters were fixed to be dealt with at subsequent sittings of the Wagga Wagga District Court or elsewhere.
I say from the…

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 Nichols

Details

AGLC: R v Nichols [2016] NSWDC 91
Case: [2016] NSWDC 91
Decision Date: 01 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nichols presented to the court where the defendant was charged with detaining a person for advantage in a company. The dispute centered around the severity of the crime and the appropriate sentence that should be imposed, taking into account the defendant's plea, cooperation, and expression of remorse. The court was tasked with determining the legal principles that should guide the sentencing process in this case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's early plea, cooperation, and remorse should be considered mitigating factors in the sentencing process, and what the objective seriousness of the offending was. The court had to balance these factors against the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and served as an appropriate deterrent.

The court held that the defendant's early plea, cooperation, and remorse were indeed mitigating factors that should be taken into account when determining the sentence. However, the court also emphasised that the objective seriousness of the offending had to be considered in the context of the overall circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence in this case was to refer the defendant for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Correction Order as a means of serving the sentence. This decision balanced the need to hold the defendant accountable for their actions with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted. Referred for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Correction Order as a means of serving the sentence.

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 Nichols [2016] NSWDC 91
Hearing dates:	08/02/2016
Decision date:	01 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Convicted. Referred for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Correction Order as a means of serving the sentence.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence, detain a person for advantage in company, early plea, co-operation, remorse, objective seriousness of offending.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 R v Collett and Robson (unrep, 1979 NSWCCA) R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA) SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92 R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 Veen (No. 2) v R (1988) 165 CLR 465 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown William Ronald Nichols - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Pincott – Crown Mr Walsh - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/125097