R v Pratt

Case [2021] NSWDC 335


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratt [2021] NSWDC 335
Hearing dates: 22 July 2021
Decision date: 22 July 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Use offensive weapon to intimidate: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period of 1 year 8 months.

Breach Community Corrections orders: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME - Use offensive weapon to intimidate - in company

SENTENCING – Relevant factors- two offenders – both armed - victim threatened and manhandled – offender on parole and bonds - offender left the crime before its completion- Form 1 – early guilty plea - powerful subjective case – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Procedure Act1986

Cases Cited:

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

Texts Cited:

Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Benjamin Pratt (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr B Hart (for the offender)
Ms A Hughes, Solicitor Advocate (for Director of Public Prosecutions

Solicitors:
McAneny Lawyers (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2020/00272892; 2017/00285993

SENTENCE

Facts for sentence

  1. At about 8:30pm on 23 March 2020, the victim, a man then aged 50, drove his friend’s car back into the car space of her unit block in Market St. Wollongong. He had taken her car to the shops to buy soft drinks and milk. He was confronted in the carpark by two men. Both wore dark clothes and gloves. Their heads and faces were partially covered by masks and hoods. Their victim was told to “get the fuck inside’ and shoved inside the door of a stairwell. He was forced up the stairs.

  2. Part of what occurred was captured by CCTV. The victim’s confusion and befuddlement at being confronted by two obviously armed and dangerous men is obvious,

  3. One of his attackers had a large hammer or mallet; the other had a shortened firearm. They both waved these weapons about. The victim asked “who are you, what do you want.” Both men were shouting at him. They wanted him to open a door. He said he had no keys.

  4. The victim was hit in the chest with the mallet. When they got to the top level near his friend’s unit he was told to “get down.” Instead he threw the drinks at the men. The bottles missed and the men hit him with their weapons. He used a bamboo screen to hit out at the men and protect himself. He told them to “fuck off.” The man with the mallet ran down the stairs.

  5. Only after that man had left the enterprise did the other man shoot his victim in his knee. Realising he’d left the keys in…

Continue reading R v Pratt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pratt [2021] NSWDC 335
Case
[2021] NSWDC 335
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pratt involved a criminal prosecution before the court. The accused was found to have used an offensive weapon to intimidate another person, with the incident occurring in the company of an accomplice. Both offenders were armed during the offence, and the victim was threatened and manhandled. Notably, the accused was on parole and subject to bonds at the time of the offence. The accused left the scene before the completion of the crime, but his co-offender remained and continued the intimidation.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the relevance of the accused's prior criminal conduct, his early guilty plea, and the special circumstances of the case. The court noted the powerful subjective case presented by the prosecution, which included the use of an offensive weapon and the intimidation of the victim. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentence for the offence of using an offensive weapon to intimidate, as well as the sentence for breaching community corrections orders.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the various factors relevant to sentencing, including the accused's criminal history, his early guilty plea, and the circumstances of the offence. The court determined that the use of an offensive weapon to intimidate warranted a sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The court also considered the sentence for the breach of community corrections orders, imposing an additional term of imprisonment of 3 months. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months for using an offensive weapon to intimidate, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. The accused was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months for breaching community corrections orders, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the primary offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Use offensive weapon to intimidate: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 4 months. Non parole period of 1 year 8 months.

Breach Community Corrections orders: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 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.