R v Phelan

Case [2020] NSWDC 219


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Phelan [2020] NSWDC 219
Hearing dates: 20 March 2020
Date of orders: 20 March 2020
Decision date: 20 March 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, 3 months: at [37].

Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Demanding property with menaces — Detain for advantage
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — Factual basis for sentence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
BP v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 159
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

  Tate Phelan (Offender)
Representation:

Mr J Mehta (Crown)

  Mr P Johnson (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2018/139900

Judgment

  1. Tate Phelan, now aged 21, appears for a sentence in relation to a number of offences in 2018 involving a young man named Lucas who was 22 years of age at the time of the offences.

  2. First, an offence of demanding property in company with menaces with intent to steal contrary to s 99(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment (sequence 001). Secondly, an offence of take and detain a person in company with intent to obtain an advantage contrary to s 86(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment (sequence 002). Thirdly and finally an offence contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, of aggravated take or detain a person in company with intent to obtain an advantage, occasioning actual bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment (sequence 004). There are no standard non-parole periods for any of these offences.

  3. There is a matter to be dealt with on a Form 1 (sequence 003) of demand property in company with menaces with intent to steal contrary to s 99(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 which is attached to the first count on the indictment (sequence 001), and that will be dealt with in the way suggested by the Chief Justice in the Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.

  4. Pleas of guilty were entered at the time the matter was listed for trial, in circumstances which justify a 5% discount on the term of imprisonment which Mr Johnson of counsel acknowledges…

Continue reading R v Phelan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Phelan [2020] NSWDC 219
Case
[2020] NSWDC 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Phelan involved the respondent, Phelan, who was charged with demanding property with menaces and detaining a person for advantage. The matter was heard in the relevant court, where Phelan pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Phelan, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The primary issues included the nature and severity of the offence, Phelan’s criminal history, the presence of any mitigating factors such as a plea of guilty and expressions of remorse, and the need to ensure appropriate deterrence and parity with co-offenders.

The court examined the objective seriousness of the offence, acknowledging it as a form 1 offence with multiple instances, and assessed the factual basis for the sentence. Aggravating factors included Phelan’s record of previous convictions, which highlighted a pattern of criminal behaviour. Mitigating factors considered were Phelan’s plea of guilty, which typically reduces the severity of the sentence, and indications of remorse. The court also took into account subjective considerations such as Phelan’s age, drug addiction, and any special circumstances that might influence the sentencing decision.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for deterrence against the mitigating factors presented. The court ultimately decided on an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. This decision was aimed at achieving a balance between the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the specific circumstances of the offender and the co-offenders. The court’s ruling took into account all relevant factors, ensuring a sentence that was proportionate and justifiable under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, 3 months: at [37].

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.