R v Pires

Case [2017] NSWDC 341

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pires [2017] NSWDC 341
Hearing dates: 26 October 2017
Date of orders: 24 November 2017
Decision date: 24 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

1 The offender is convicted.
2 But for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of three years and three months imprisonment.
3 In light of the plea, the offender is sentenced to serve a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment to commence on 24 November 2017 and to expire in 23 May 2019. Thereafter the offender is to be released on parole to serve an additional term of 1 year and 1 month imprisonment from 24 November 2017 to 23 June 2020. This makes for an overall head term of 2 years and 7 months imprisonment.
4 I vary the statutory ratio and find special circumstances.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – reckless as to causing grievous bodily harm – ferocity of the attack – use of an improvised weapon – mere intoxication is not a mitigating factor – vulnerable victim – discount for guilty plea – prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dunn v R [2010] NSWCCA 128
Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209
Hona v R [2016] NSWCCA 119
Longworth v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 119
Nowak v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 89
R v Bloomfield [1998] 44 NSWLR 734
R v Buddle [2005] NSWCCA 82
R v Channells (1997) (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Hunt CJ, Ireland and Dunford JJ, 30 September 1997)
R v Douglas [2007] NSWCCA 31
R v Dungay [2012] NSWCCA 197
R v Esho [2001] NSWCCA 415
R v Ferguson [1999] NSWCCA 214
R v Mentez [2002] NSWCCA 415
R v Mitchell [2007] 177 ACR 194
R v Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Zoef [2005] NSWCCA 268
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff)
Andrew Olafs Pires (Defendant)
Representation: Briony O’Loughlin (Plaintiff)
Steven Schneider, HDO Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/379546
Publication restriction: No restriction

Judgment

  1. On 26 October 2017, I heard submissions on sentence following a plea of guilty by the offender to an offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 35(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Facts

  1. According to the agreed facts, the offender and the victim were residing with their father and grandparents at Gurley Place, Bonnyrigg at the time of the offence. They had previously had arguments between them but nothing that had resulted in either being injured. Both the victim and the offender have lived together most of their lives.

  2. On Saturday 17th December 2016, the offender and the victim spent the day together working in the garden of their house. During the day, they consumed a few beers. Later that evening at about 7:00pm, their father drove them both to a house party in Heckenberg.

  3. While at the party, both the offender and…

Continue reading R v Pires

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pires [2017] NSWDC 341
Case
[2017] NSWDC 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pires involved the defendant who was convicted of a serious assault causing grievous bodily harm. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various factors such as the ferocity of the attack, the use of an improvised weapon, the defendant’s level of intoxication, the vulnerability of the victim, the defendant’s guilty plea, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The court first considered the nature and severity of the assault, which involved significant violence and the use of an improvised weapon, indicating a high level of recklessness. While the defendant's intoxication was noted, the court held that mere intoxication does not constitute a mitigating factor. The vulnerability of the victim was also highlighted as a critical aspect in assessing the gravity of the offence. The court then acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea, which warranted a discount in the sentence. Additionally, the court evaluated the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were viewed positively.

After weighing all these factors, the court concluded that, but for the guilty plea, a sentence of three years and three months imprisonment would have been appropriate. However, considering the plea, the court imposed a non-parole period of one year and six months, with an additional term of one year and one month on parole, resulting in an overall head term of two years and seven months imprisonment. The court also varied the statutory ratio and found special circumstances justifying the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The offender is convicted.

2 But for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of three years and three months imprisonment.

3 In light of the plea, the offender is sentenced to serve a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment to commence on 24 November 2017 and to expire in 23 May 2019. Thereafter the offender is to be released on parole to serve an additional term of 1 year and 1 month imprisonment from 24 November 2017 to 23 June 2020. This makes for an overall head term of 2 years and 7 months imprisonment.

4 I vary the statutory ratio and find special circumstances.

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.