R v Rogers

Case [2024] NSWDC 1


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rogers [2024] NSWDC 1
Hearing dates: 23 January 2024
Decision date: 25 January 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:

See para [50] of these reasons

Catchwords:

CRIME – One count of enter building to steal vehicle - Lengthy criminal history – Drug addiction – Offence whilst on parole – Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900, ss 111(2), 192E(1)(a), 154J(1)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 201A(3), 21A(2)(j), 21A(2)(e),(eb)

Road Transport Act 2013, s 54(1)(a)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

O’Grady v R [2013] NSWCCA 281

R v Elphick [2002] NSWCCA 273

R v Hayes (1984) 1 NSWLR 740

R v Simpson (2000) NSWLR 70

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex
William Rogers
Representation:

Counsel:

R Nezval (Crown)
P de Dassel (Accused)

Solicitors:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Richard Cummins Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2023/20211
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. HIS HONOUR: The Offender has pleaded guilty to a number of charges arising from events he was involved in on 8 January 2023 and 13 January 2023.

  2. On 8 January, with the assistance of the Co-Offender Matthew Foster, on whom I have just passed sentence, he entered premises at Taren Point, NSW, and stole a Mercedes-Benz motor vehicle [xxx] 11E.

  3. These reasons should be read in conjunction with the reasons I have just delivered in relation to the Co-Offender Matthew Foster.

  4. The aggravated enter dwelling and steel motor vehicle the subject of these reasons are what I described as the second event in my reasons for Mr Foster’s sentence. For the purpose of that that event, Mr Foster was an accessory before the fact as he drove the Offender to the premises and waited outside while he entered the premises and stole the second Mercedes.

  5. Other charges to be dealt with on a “Form 1” deal with dishonestly obtaining petrol from a service station for use in the stolen Mercedes-Benz on the evening of 8 January 2023, a second charge of stealing of petrol in a different vehicle on 13 January 2023. The matters to be dealt with on a section 166 certificate involve three counts of driving vehicles whilst disqualified from driving and knowingly possess four car number plates not on the correct vehicle.

Offences and maximum penalties

  1. The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences:

  1. H91972206/16: Aggravated enter dwelling whilst knowing people there-SI for entering a dwelling house with intent to steal a black Mercedes Benz, contrary to s111(2) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

  2. H91972206/17: Steal motor vehicle – T1 for stealing a black Mercedes Benz, contrary to s154F Crimes Act1900. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

FORM 1

  1. When being sentenced for sequence 16, the offender asks the Court to take into account on a Form 1 document, the following:

  2. H91972206/4: Dishonestly obtain property by deception – T1 for dishonestly obtaining 78.03 litres of Premium unleaded…

Continue reading R v Rogers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rogers [2024] NSWDC 1
Case
[2024] NSWDC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rogers was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Rogers, stood accused of entering a building with the intent to steal a vehicle. Rogers had a significant criminal history and was currently on parole for a prior offence. Additionally, Rogers was known to struggle with drug addiction. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for this latest offence, taking into account the defendant's extensive criminal record, his drug addiction, and the fact that the offence occurred while he was on parole.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to give to the defendant's criminal history, his drug addiction, and the fact that he committed the offence while on parole. The defence argued that these factors should significantly mitigate the sentence, given the circumstances of the defendant's life and the apparent lack of rehabilitation during his parole period. The prosecution, however, emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from repeat offenders.

The court considered these arguments carefully. It acknowledged the defendant's troubled background and his struggle with addiction but also noted the gravity of the current offence. Ultimately, the court found that while these factors warranted some degree of mitigation, they did not sufficiently outweigh the need to deter Rogers and others from committing similar offences. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the need for punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The specific details of the sentence are outlined in paragraph [50] of the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para [50] of these reasons

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.