R v Nichols, William Ronald - [2016] NSWDC 389

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v NICHOLS, William Ronald [2016] NSWDC 389
Hearing dates: 3 February 2016 – 1 April 2016
Date of orders: 01 April 2016
Decision date: 01 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [107]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Detain for advantage – SENTENCING – discount for cooperation with police – role of co-accused where they did not inflict punishment directly upon victim –degree of planning – relevance of motive – where prisoner is provoked by the victim – extent to which general deterrence is applied – no prior offending – protective custody – positive steps taken by the prisoner for rehabilitation – comparative sentencing.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96
Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Lattouf v R [1999] NSWSC 1382
R v Collett and Robson Court of Criminal Appeal unreported, 7 June 1979
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Rayment [2010] NSWCCA 85
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 16
Regina v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30
Veen v R (No. 2) [1988] 165 CLR 465
Williams v R [2006] NSWCCA 33
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 at 112-3
Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
William Ronald Nichols (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M. Pincott – Crown
Mr G. Walsh – Offender

File Number(s): 2014/00125097
Publication restriction: Nil

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…

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 Nichols, William Ronald 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: [2016] NSWDC 389
Decision Date: 01 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nichols, William Ronald, the accused was convicted of detaining a person for advantage. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. The case arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant was found guilty of the offence. The legal issues before the court involved the extent of the discount for cooperation with police, the role of co-accused, the degree of planning, relevance of motive, provocation, general deterrence, prior offending, protective custody, steps taken for rehabilitation, and comparative sentencing.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the degree of planning involved in the offence, the relevance of the accused's motive, and whether the accused was provoked by the victim. The court also took into account the extent to which general deterrence should be applied and the absence of prior offending by the accused. Additionally, the court examined the steps taken by the accused for rehabilitation and the need for protective custody. The court found that a full-time custodial sentence was appropriate, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

The court concluded that, while the accused had shown some remorse and taken positive steps towards rehabilitation, the offence was serious and required a significant penalty to serve as a deterrent to others. The court also noted that the accused's role in the offence involved a degree of planning and that the absence of prior offending should not be a mitigating factor in this case. The court further found that the accused's motivation and the need for general deterrence outweighed any potential discount for cooperation with police. The court also considered the need for protective custody and the comparative sentencing of similar offences.

ORDERS:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [107].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [107]

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, William Ronald [2016] NSWDC 389
Hearing dates:	3 February 2016 – 1 April 2016
Date of orders:	01 April 2016
Decision date:	01 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [107]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Detain for advantage – SENTENCING – discount for cooperation with police – role of co-accused where they did not inflict punishment directly upon victim –degree of planning – relevance of motive – where prisoner is provoked by the victim – extent to which general deterrence is applied – no prior offending – protective custody – positive steps taken by the prisoner for rehabilitation – comparative sentencing.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act (1900) (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96 Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Lattouf v R [1999] NSWSC 1382 R v Collett and Robson Court of Criminal Appeal unreported, 7 June 1979 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183 R v Rayment [2010] NSWCCA 85 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 16 Regina v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92 SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30 Veen v R (No. 2) [1988] 165 CLR 465 Williams v R [2006] NSWCCA 33 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108 at 112-3 Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) William Ronald Nichols (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M. Pincott – Crown Mr G. Walsh – Offender
File Number(s):	2014/00125097
Publication restriction:	Nil