Legal Research
Cases
R v Prigg; R v Boyton

R v Prigg; R v Boyton

Case [2024] NSWDC 400 6 September 2024

Sentencing

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PRIGG; R v BOYTON [2024] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates: 5 September 2024
Date of orders: 6 September 2024
Decision date: 06 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced – see paragraphs [97]-[105]

Catchwords:
Sentence – Specially Aggravated Take and Detain – Joint Criminal Enterprise – Different facts for each offender – onerous bail conditions

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
DG (No. 1) v R [2023] NSWCCA 320
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Khanat v R (Cth) [2024] NSWCCA 41.
Khanwaizv R [2012] NSWCCA 168
R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133
R vPalu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
R v Reeves [2024] NSWCCA 154
R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175
R v Webb (2004) 149 A Crim R 167
Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3
Taitokov R [2020] NSWCCA 43
Tonga, Samuel [2023] NSWCCA 120
Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Charles PRIGG
Daniel BOYTON
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Baumgarten for the Crown
Mr J Clarke for the offender Prigg
Mr S Sinclair for the offender Boyton
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Schumer Lawyers for the offender Prigg
Aboriginal Legal Service for the offender Boyton

File Number(s): 2020/286808 (Prigg)
2021/67037 (Boyton)
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

The offender Charles Prigg was committed for trial from the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 21 April 2021. On 4 June 2024 He pleaded guilty to a charge that he:

On 4 October 2020 in Estella in the State of New South Wales, whilst in the company of Daniel Boyton and Emma Field took William McGregor without his consent and with intent to hold him to ransom and at the time of the taking actual bodily harm was occasioned on William McGregor, contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act, 1900.

There was a further count on the indictment, however, the Crown accepted the plea of guilty to that count in full satisfaction of the indictment. It is uncontroversial that the offender is entitled to a discount of 5% for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
At the sentence hearing the offender Daniel Boyton pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment, namely that he:

On 4 October 2020 in Estella in the State of New South Wales, whilst in the company of Charles Prigg and Emma Field took William McGregor without his consent and with intent to hold him to ransom and at the time of the taking actual bodily harm was occasioned on William McGregor, contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act, 1900.

On 4 October 2020 at Mount Austin in the State of New South Wales did intimidate William McGregor with the intention of causing to fear physical…

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 Prigg; R v Boyton

Details

AGLC: R v Prigg; R v Boyton [2024] NSWDC 400
Case: [2024] NSWDC 400
Decision Date: 06 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Prigg and Boyton, were involved in a crime that involved the specially aggravated taking and detaining of hostages. They appealed against their sentences, which were handed down by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case reached the High Court of Australia, which needed to determine the legal issues surrounding the joint criminal enterprise and the applicability of different facts for each offender.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the nature of the joint criminal enterprise and the individual circumstances of each offender. The court had to consider whether the sentences reflected the severity of the crime and whether the offenders' roles and responsibilities were adequately taken into account. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the onerous bail conditions imposed on the appellants were justified and proportionate to the risk they posed to the community.

The court, in its judgment, found that the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were not manifestly inadequate. It held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the joint criminal enterprise and the different roles played by each offender. The court also found that the bail conditions were not excessive, given the gravity of the offences and the risk of reoffending. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, affirming the sentences and bail conditions imposed by the lower court.

The High Court's decision clarified the legal principles surrounding sentencing in joint criminal enterprises and the setting of bail conditions. It provided guidance to lower courts on how to approach such cases in the future, ensuring that sentences and bail conditions are both fair and proportionate to the nature of the crime and the individual circumstances of each offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced – see paragraphs [97]-[105]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Prigg; R v Boyton [2024] NSWDC 400

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Rabieh v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 154 Para 57

…n condition except for reporting, attending court and medical appointments was held not to mandate any mitigation of sentence. However, in R v Reeves [2024] NSWCCA 154 the offender who was on parole was granted bail requiring him to reside at a Community Offender Support Programme centre with very strict conditions…
R v Butler
[2024] NSWCCA 133 Para 43

…n the course of the sentence hearing, I drew the attention of the parties (which should not have been necessary) to the recent decision of R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133, in particular the judgment of Campbell J (Ward P, Button J agreeing) at [45] ff.…
Khanat v R (Cth)
[2024] NSWCCA 41 Para 86

…One further and more recent decision is Khanat v R (Cth) [2024] NSWCCA 41. Cavanagh J (Ireace J agreeing, Wilson J dissenting) said at [83]:…
DG v R (No 1)
[2023] NSWCCA 320 Para 85

…The Court of Criminal Appeal in DG (No. 1) v R [2023] NSWCCA 320 disapproved the practice of deducting any period spent in custody bail refused from a sentence in order to get the length of the sentence within the limits whereby the sentence can be served by way of Intensive Correction Order. That is not an issue th…
Tonga, Samuel v R
[2023] NSWCCA 120 Para 84

…In Tonga, Samuel [2023] NSWCCA 120 Basten AJA (Walton & Hamill JJ agreeing, both with additional comments) said at [49]:…
Zheng v R
[2023] NSWCCA 64 Para 83

…cisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the subject. Gleeson JA (Hamill J agreeing with brief additional comments, Ireace J agreeing) in Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64 at [281]-[286] said (footnotes omitted):…
Stanley v DPP (NSW)
[2023] HCA 3 Para 75

…Now, the consideration turns to the manner in which any sentence is to be served. I note that since Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 this is a common submission. The Crown opposed the imposition of an Intensive Correction Order and submitted that only a sentence of full-time imprisonment is appropriate in this matter…
La v R
[2021] NSWCCA 136 Para 56

…r said these are discretionary decisions reviewable only on a House v The King basis ( Quinlin at [89]). As Garling J pointed out in La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 (at [56]-[58]) (Basten JA and Price J agreeing), all grants of conditional bail pursuant to s 20 Bail Act will involve, or are highly likely to involve, restri…
Taitoko v R
[2020] NSWCCA 43 Para 20

…v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 at [21] per Howie J, Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168 at [96] per Beech-Jones J (as his Honour then was) and Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 at [38] per Leeming JA. Accordingly, I will sentence in accordance with the agreed facts.…
Frlanov v R
[2018] NSWCCA 267 Para 24

…period on bail should be treated as the notional equivalent of custody, conveniently referred to as ‘quasi-custody’”: see also Frlanov v R [2018] NSWCCA 267 at [24], RA Hulme J (Macfarlan JA and Rothman J agreeing); and R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; 149 A Crim R 167 at [18], Grove J (Simpson and Shaw JJ agreeing). [4…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 64

…d. I take no persuading given the contents of the report that the principles enunciated by the High Court of Australia in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 are enlivened to a meaningful extent. This reduces the moral culpability of the offender accordingly.…
R v Pogson
[2012] NSWCCA 225

…ily involves substantial punishment, it also reflects a significant degree of leniency : R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225 at 84 [106]; Whelan v R (2012) 228 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 147 at [120].”’”…
Khanwaiz v R
[2012] NSWCCA 168 Para 20

…for neither offender objected to the tender of exhibit C. I note the decisions of R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 at [21] per Howie J, Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168 at [96] per Beech-Jones J (as his Honour then was) and Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 at [38] per Leeming JA. Accordingly, I will sentence in accordanc…
Whelan v R
[2012] NSWCCA 147 Para 120

…nt degree of leniency : R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225 at 84 [106]; Whelan v R (2012) 228 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 147 at [120].”’”…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 42

…This grounded a submission from counsel for the offender that the principles enunciated by McClellan CJ at CL in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 at [177]-[178] are enlivened, reducing the moral culpability of the offender and reducing the impact of specific and general deterrence in the sentencing exercise.…
R v Webb
[2004] NSWCCA 330

…rred to as ‘quasi-custody’”: see also Frlanov v R [2018] NSWCCA 267 at [24], RA Hulme J (Macfarlan JA and Rothman J agreeing); and R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; 149 A Crim R 167 at [18], Grove J (Simpson and Shaw JJ agreeing). [46] Price J pointed out in Quinlin (at [89]) that two questions arise: first whether the ba…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 30)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 72)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v PRIGG; R v BOYTON [2024] NSWDC 400
Hearing dates:	5 September 2024
Date of orders:	6 September 2024
Decision date:	06 September 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced – see paragraphs [97]-[105]
Catchwords:	Sentence – Specially Aggravated Take and Detain – Joint Criminal Enterprise – Different facts for each offender – onerous bail conditions
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 DG (No. 1) v R [2023] NSWCCA 320 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Khanat v R (Cth) [2024] NSWCCA 41. Khanwaizv R [2012] NSWCCA 168 R v Butler [2024] NSWCCA 133 R vPalu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 R v Reeves [2024] NSWCCA 154 R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175 R v Webb (2004) 149 A Crim R 167 Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 Taitokov R [2020] NSWCCA 43 Tonga, Samuel [2023] NSWCCA 120 Zheng v R [2023] NSWCCA 64
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Charles PRIGG Daniel BOYTON
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Baumgarten for the Crown Mr J Clarke for the offender Prigg Mr S Sinclair for the offender Boyton Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Schumer Lawyers for the offender Prigg Aboriginal Legal Service for the offender Boyton
File Number(s):	2020/286808 (Prigg) 2021/67037 (Boyton)
Publication restriction:	No