R v Peters - [2015] NSWDC 325

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PETERS [2015] NSWDC 325
Hearing dates: 12 & 14/10/2015
Decision date: 15 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and three months with a non parole period of two years, seven months.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, early plea, objective seriousness of crime, special circumstances, quasi-custody, time spent in residential rehabilitation, drug/alcohol affected.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 212
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Way[2004] NSWCCA 131
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Jacob John PETERS - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Mr Walsh - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Legal Aid - Offender

File Number(s): 2014/00131962

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Jacob John Peters today appears for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court, and pleads guilty in this court, of wounding Andrew Lotherington with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to him on 21 January 2014 at Bathurst.
This is an offence contrary to s 33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. It has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of seven years imprisonment. There are no matters on a Form 1 or “related matters” on a s 166 certificate, but there are matters for which the prisoner was charged subsequent to the events giving rise to the charge that I am concerned with, that I need to consider in the context of the case that is being conducted, particularly by the accused, or, on his behalf.
The plea of guilty was clearly entered at the first reasonable opportunity and it is agreed between the parties that the prisoner should receive a discount of 25% upon the otherwise appropriate sentence, in accordance with the guideline of the Court of Criminal Appeal from 1999 of Thomson and Houlton, to recognise the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty entered.
I have already indicated to the prisoner the sentence I propose ordering and I would ask that my introductory remarks to him form part of this judgment on sentence. The prisoner appears before me in custody, however, there have been broken periods of custody. The prisoner was granted Supreme Court bail, as I understand it, in 2014 by Hidden J, primarily, as I would understand it, to permit the prisoner to enter into a rehabilitation centre.
There is a deal of evidence before me about his entry to Odyssey House, his departure from Odyssey House, his return to Odyssey House, his return to custody at various times, and then,…

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 Peters

Details

AGLC: R v Peters [2015] NSWDC 325
Case: [2015] NSWDC 325
Decision Date: 15 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Peters, the appellant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in a higher court of Australia. The primary dispute was centred around the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant, with the appeal focusing on whether the original sentence was excessive given the appellant's early guilty plea, the objective seriousness of the crime, and the special circumstances surrounding the case.

The court was required to determine whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's early plea and other mitigating factors. The key legal issues included assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, considering the appellant's early guilty plea, and evaluating the impact of special circumstances, such as the appellant's participation in a residential rehabilitation program and the effect of drugs and alcohol on his actions. The court also needed to balance these factors against the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that the original sentence was excessive and imposed a new sentence of five years and three months with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. The court took into account the objective seriousness of the crime, the appellant's early guilty plea, and the special circumstances, including the time spent in residential rehabilitation and the impact of drugs and alcohol. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The final orders reflect the court's determination that the revised sentence was more proportionate to the appellant's offending and the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and three months with a non parole period of two years, seven 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 PETERS [2015] NSWDC 325
Hearing dates:	12 & 14/10/2015
Decision date:	15 October 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and three months with a non parole period of two years, seven months.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, early plea, objective seriousness of crime, special circumstances, quasi-custody, time spent in residential rehabilitation, drug/alcohol affected.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 212 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Way[2004] NSWCCA 131 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Jacob John PETERS - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Mr Walsh - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Legal Aid - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/00131962