R v Prouting-Smith - [2020] NSWDC 644

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Prouting-Smith [2020] NSWDC 644
Hearing dates: 2 October 2020
Decision date: 16 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections Order. For orders see [79].

Catchwords:
Multiple break, enter and commit serious indictable offence.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
R v Gray [2018] NSWCCA 241
R v Holloway [2016] NSWCCA 166
R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Small v R [2018] NSWCCA 290
White v R [2016] NSWCCA 190

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Anthony Prouting-Smith (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Phelps (Offender)
Solicitors:
Mr K Ng (Crown)

File Number(s): 19/184263
19/266563
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender is being sentenced for two offences pursuant to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 of break, enter and commit serious indictable offence (steal), being sequences 1 and 3. The maximum penalty for each offence is 14 years imprisonment and there is no Standard Non-Parole Period proscribed.
The offender has asked that a further matter be taken into account on a Form 1 in respect of sequence 1. It is an offence pursuant to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of attempt break and enter dwelling house with intent to steal (sequence 9). The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of that offence.
The offender has also asked that two further matters be taken into account on a Form 1 in respect of sequence 3. They are offences pursuant to s 117(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 of larceny (sequence 7), and an offence pursuant to s 114(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 of enter building/land with intent to commit indictable offence (sequence 10). The offender has admitted his guilt in respect of those two matters.
All of the offences were committed whilst the offender was on parole. Three offences subject to the Form 1’s, referred to above, were committed between 17 and 18 March 2019. Sequences 1 and 3 were committed on 25 and 26 May 2019. On 15 June 2013, the offender had been sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 7 years commencing on 3 October 2013, with a non‑parole period of 4 years. He was released to parole on 2 October 2017.
The offender was arrested in respect of sequences 1 and 3 on 13 June 2019. He was subsequently arrested in respect of the three Form 1 matters (sequences 7, 9 and 10) and was in custody from 27 August 2019 until 22 January 2020, a period of 149 days.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 2 October 2020. The Crown Sentence Summary became Ex A. It…

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 Prouting-Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Prouting-Smith [2020] NSWDC 644
Case: [2020] NSWDC 644
Decision Date: 16 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Prouting-Smith, was charged with multiple offences, including breaking and entering a residential property and committing a serious indictable offence. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The legal issues for the court to determine were the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the severity of the offences and the defendant's criminal history. The court had to weigh the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community.

The court considered various sentencing principles and guidelines, including the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's previous criminal record, and the need for specific deterrence. The court also took into account the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, background, and potential for rehabilitation. After careful consideration, the court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary, but it also recognised the potential for rehabilitation through an Intensive Corrections Order.

The court ordered that the defendant be subject to an Intensive Corrections Order as part of his sentence. The specific orders are detailed in [79] of the judgment. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to sentencing, aiming to address the seriousness of the offences while also considering the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections Order. For orders see [79].

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 Prouting-Smith [2020] NSWDC 644
Hearing dates:	2 October 2020
Decision date:	16 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections Order. For orders see [79].
Catchwords:	Multiple break, enter and commit serious indictable offence.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Gray [2018] NSWCCA 241 R v Holloway [2016] NSWCCA 166 R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 Small v R [2018] NSWCCA 290 White v R [2016] NSWCCA 190
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Anthony Prouting-Smith (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Phelps (Offender) Solicitors: Mr K Ng (Crown)
File Number(s):	19/184263 19/266563
Publication restriction:	Nil