R v Pagett; R v Williamson - [2024] NSWDC 623

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pagett; R v Williamson [2024] NSWDC 623
Hearing dates: 1 November 2024
Date of orders: 1 November 2024
Decision date: 01 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Pagett – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a non‑parole period of 1 year 8 months
Williamson – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Detain — In company — Intimation — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — No record of previous convictions — Remorse
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Health issues — Mental illness — Youth and immaturity — Trauma — Sexual and physical assaults in custody — Deprived childhood

Legislation Cited:
CrimesAct 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 271
Blackman & Walters [2001] NSW CCA 121
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DM v R [2005] NSW CCA 181
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43
Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40; (2013) 252 CLR 381
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
Veen No 2 [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Category: Sentence
Parties: Mataja Pagett (the offender)
Jayden Williamson (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (for the Crown)
S McGee (for the offender Pagett)
Solicitors:
Circular Legal (for the offender Pagett)
M Kwan solicitor for Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender Williamson)

File Number(s): 2023/281723; 2023/281722

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

On Wednesday 30 August 2023 the complainant in this matter, who is transgender and identifies as female, caught a train from Dapto to North Wollongong. There she saw a number of young people who she knew. One of those young people had made a complaint about her. Others in the group believed that the complainant in this matter had behaved inappropriately to one of their number.
Two of the group who approached the complainant were Mataja Pagett and Jayden Williamson, who appear today…

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 Pagett; R v Williamson 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: [2024] NSWDC 623
Decision Date: 01 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pagett; R v Williamson, the Supreme Court of Victoria dealt with the sentencing of two co-defendants convicted of assaulting a police officer during the course of an arrest. The defendants were involved in a situation where they were in the company of another individual, who had intimated that the police were present. The altercation resulted in the assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the officer. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for both Pagett and Williamson, considering various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences to be imposed on the defendants, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of their cases. For Pagett, the court had to consider his record of previous convictions, while Williamson's case involved a plea of guilty and no prior convictions. Additionally, the court needed to assess the remorse shown by the defendants and the objective seriousness of the crime. The court also had to balance the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, moral culpability, and the need to ensure parity between co-offenders.

In delivering its judgment, the court undertook an instinctive synthesis of all relevant factors. It assessed the defendants' criminal history, their remorse, and the circumstances of the offence. The court found that while the defendants' actions were serious, there were mitigating factors such as their pleas of guilty and the absence of previous convictions for Williamson. The court also considered the defendants' backgrounds, including their drug addiction, health issues, mental illness, youth, and traumatic experiences. Ultimately, the court sentenced Pagett to imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, and Williamson to imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months.

The court's final orders reflected the comprehensive consideration of all mitigating and aggravating factors. Pagett was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in prison, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, while Williamson received a sentence of 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months. The sentences aimed to achieve the appropriate balance between deterrence, rehabilitation, and the need to ensure justice for the victims and the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pagett – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a non‑parole period of 1 year 8 months

Williamson – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months

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 Pagett; R v Williamson [2024] NSWDC 623
Hearing dates:	1 November 2024
Date of orders:	1 November 2024
Decision date:	01 November 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Pagett – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months with a non‑parole period of 1 year 8 months Williamson – Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Detain — In company — Intimation — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — No record of previous convictions — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Health issues — Mental illness — Youth and immaturity — Trauma — Sexual and physical assaults in custody — Deprived childhood
Legislation Cited:	CrimesAct 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246 Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 271 Blackman & Walters [2001] NSW CCA 121 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 DM v R [2005] NSW CCA 181 Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43 Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40; (2013) 252 CLR 381 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 Veen No 2 [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Mataja Pagett (the offender) Jayden Williamson (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: N Keay (for the Crown) S McGee (for the offender Pagett) Solicitors: Circular Legal (for the offender Pagett) M Kwan solicitor for Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender Williamson)
File Number(s):	2023/281723; 2023/281722