R v Peter James Day [3]

[2009] NSWDC 359

CITATION:	R v Peter James DAY [3] [2009] NSWDC 359
HEARING DATE(S):	12 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 June 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non parole period for one year to date from 20 November 2009, and a total term of two years. The offender’s non parole period will expire on 19 November 2010, on which day the offender is to be released to parole.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL Law - Sentence - Breaking and entering in company with intent to commit a serious indictable offence
PARTIES:	The Crown Peter James Day
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/21/3387
COUNSEL:	E. Balodis - Crown P. King - Offender
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Matouk Joyner Lawyers - Offender

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 20 May 2009, after a four week trial, the offender was convicted of an offence of breaking and entering in company with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely to intimidate a man by the name of SA. At the same time the jury found the offender not guilty of a more serious charge, namely breaking and entering in company with intent to kidnap a woman by the name of RM, she was at the time SA’s wife.

2 The offender had been involved in the running of mobile telephone stores for some time. It is through that occupation that he met RM and then SA.

3 The offender suffers from a condition called dyspraxia which interferes with his ability to speak and comprehend. He has had very few friends in his life, and was a person who could be easily manipulated by others who preferred their interests over his. RM was one such person.

4 She came into his life when she met the offender after being employed by him at one of his stores. They became friends and RM began to require, as part of her friendship with the offender, that the offender would assist her with problems she was having with her family. Perhaps because of the offender’s difficulties in making friends he did what RM required. He helped her to leave her family home on two occasions when RM expressed a desire to run away.

5 A short time after the second of those occasions RM’s father began to take steps to arrange for RM’s marriage. She, without telling her family, then left Australia to go to Jordan, where she immediately married SA who was living over there at the time. The offender assisted her to leave Australia, and also when she later came back.

6 It is clear that on her return to Australia RM complained of domestic violence at the hands of her husband, not only to the offender but to others as well. The offender’s reaction, however, went far beyond what was reasonable. In part that was due to his dyspraxia. It was also due to a series of emails which he received, purported from RM, which became exhibit…