District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rush [2022] NSWDC 107 Hearing dates: 11 April 2022 Date of orders: 11 April 2022 Decision date: 11 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Grant DCJ Decision: Orders at [29]
Catchwords: SENTENCING – take and detain for advantage – domestic violence offence – victim is the child of the offender – victim in foster care – advantage was to prevent lawful return of child to foster parents – no threatened or actual use of violence – lower end of objective seriousness – strong subjective circumstances – non-custodial penalty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Category: Sentence Parties: Regina
Tracy RushRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Roland Keller (Offender)
Ms J Dawson (DPP)
Mr D Barron (Offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00068892 Publication restriction: Nil
Ex Tempore Judgment
Introduction
-
Tracy Rush has pleaded guilty to one charge of take/detain a person with the intention of obtaining an advantage, to wit, access to a child, contrary to section 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
-
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. This is an important guidepost in the assessment of sentence. A sentencing judge should steer by the maximum penalty but not aim for it.
Plea of guilty
-
A plea of guilty was accepted by the Local Court Magistrate in committal proceedings for the offence. As such, Ms Rush is entitled to a discount for an early plea of 25% in accordance with section 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The Facts
-
There is an extensive agreed facts document. In summary, the facts are these:
-
The offender is 37 years of age. The victim is her biological son. He is 13 years old and is in out of home care. Anglicare facilitated visits between the accused and the victim approximately once per month. On 18 October 2020, orders were made allocating all aspects of parental responsibility to the Minister for Family and Community Services.
-
The offender bought a NSW Trainlink ticket to Sydney under a false name and gave it to the victim. On 9 March 2021 while he was at school, the victim asked his teacher to go to the bathroom. He left the school grounds and went to Culcairn railway station. He boarded the train to Sydney. When his absence from class was noticed, the police were contacted and a search ensued.
-
The offender and an acquaintance collected the victim from Sydney Central railway station just before 8:00pm that evening. They drove to the acquaintance’s address in Windale. The offender was contacted by an Anglicare case worker who advised the child was missing. Ms Rush responded and told her that the child was with her.
-
On 10 March 2022, the offender made further contact with the case worker requesting that search efforts for the child be cancelled. Later that day, police attended the address. The offender…
Continue reading R v Rush
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Rush [2022] NSWDC 107
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the case. The court considered the lower end of the objective seriousness scale due to the absence of violence, but also noted strong subjective factors, such as the appellant's relationship with the child and the impact on the child's welfare. The court had to balance these considerations in determining an appropriate penalty.
The court found that, despite the lower end of the objective seriousness, the strong subjective circumstances warranted a non-custodial penalty. The court took into account the appellant's personal history, the impact of imprisonment on the child, and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence would be more beneficial for all parties involved. The final orders were made at [29].
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders at [29]
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.