R v Rycroft - [2024] NSWDC 505

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rycroft [2024] NSWDC 505
Hearing dates: 27 October 2023; 9 November 2023; 14 December 2023; 30 January 2024; 14 June 2024; 26 July 2024
Date of orders: 25 October 2024
Decision date: 25 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:
For all six matters for sentence, the offender is convicted.
The aggregate sentence I impose is a sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing from 29 January 2023. I fix a non-parole period of 10 months 14 days commencing from that same date. On the information presently available to the Court the earliest date on which the offender became eligible to be released to parole in respect of the present offending was 12 December 2023.

Catchwords:
Criminal law – sentence – break and enter – delayed disposition – s 11 bail – long standing drug addiction - special circumstances – considerations informing the fixing of a non-parole period as distinct from the imposition of a head sentence – cross-roads – potential institutionalisation - demonstrated rehabilitation in the community pending disposition of sentence – community protection – public interest in not disturbing rehabilitative progress – substantial variation of statutory ratio – analogy with Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence – where leniency might lead to or maintain reform

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

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v R [1990] 169 CLR 525
House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84
R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
R v Markarian [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Moon (2000) 117 A Crim R 497
R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394
Veen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465
Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Stuart Rycroft (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr L Betts – ODPP
Mr P Townsend - Offender

File Number(s): 2023/30479; 2023/47810

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Mr Stuart Rycroft is before the Court today for sentence in respect of 6 property offences. He entered guilty pleas in the Local Court on 20 July 2023 and was committed for sentence in this court, where he maintains his pleas. It is common ground that Mr Rycroft should have, and I will allow, a discount of 25% on sentence for each offence on account of his early pleas.
The matters for sentence are 5 counts of break enter and steal, contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act and one count of attempt break and enter with intent, contrary to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act. The offences are split between two sets of offences and nominated sequences 1, 3, 5 and 6 of H92419632 and sequences 1 and 3 of H93067958. 958/1 is the attempt offence.
Each of the offences is serious, as indicated by the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament, which, for each of the five s 112(1)(a) offences is 14 years imprisonment and for the s 113(1) offence is 10…

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 Rycroft

Details

AGLC: R v Rycroft [2024] NSWDC 505
Case: [2024] NSWDC 505
Decision Date: 25 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Rycroft, was charged with multiple counts of break and enter offences, leading to a complex sentencing matter that was adjudicated in the relevant Australian court. The crux of the dispute involved determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had a history of drug addiction and had demonstrated a degree of rehabilitation while awaiting sentencing. The court had to balance the need for community protection with the defendant’s personal circumstances and potential for reform.

The primary legal issues before the court included the appropriateness of a custodial sentence, the calculation of an appropriate non-parole period, and the consideration of special circumstances such as the defendant's long-standing drug addiction and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts. The court had to weigh these factors against the statutory sentencing guidelines and the overarching principles of criminal justice, including deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously considered the statutory maximum sentences for the offences, the defendant’s personal circumstances, and the broader implications of the sentence on both the defendant and the community. The court acknowledged the defendant’s significant rehabilitation efforts and the potential for continued reform if granted leniency. The court determined that a substantial variation from the statutory sentencing ratio was warranted, drawing on analogous reasoning from Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence where leniency might promote or sustain reform. The court ultimately imposed a sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months and 14 days, reflecting the unique circumstances of the case.

The court's final orders confirmed the defendant's conviction on all charges and set the aggregate sentence as specified, with a non-parole period starting from the date of commencement of the sentence. The earliest eligibility for parole release was set for 12 December 2023, taking into account the factors discussed in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

For all six matters for sentence, the offender is convicted.

The aggregate sentence I impose is a sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing from 29 January 2023. I fix a non-parole period of 10 months 14 days commencing from that same date. On the information presently available to the Court the earliest date on which the offender became eligible to be released to parole in respect of the present offending was 12 December 2023.

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 Rycroft [2024] NSWDC 505
Hearing dates:	27 October 2023; 9 November 2023; 14 December 2023; 30 January 2024; 14 June 2024; 26 July 2024
Date of orders:	25 October 2024
Decision date:	25 October 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:	For all six matters for sentence, the offender is convicted. The aggregate sentence I impose is a sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing from 29 January 2023. I fix a non-parole period of 10 months 14 days commencing from that same date. On the information presently available to the Court the earliest date on which the offender became eligible to be released to parole in respect of the present offending was 12 December 2023.
Catchwords:	Criminal law – sentence – break and enter – delayed disposition – s 11 bail – long standing drug addiction - special circumstances – considerations informing the fixing of a non-parole period as distinct from the imposition of a head sentence – cross-roads – potential institutionalisation - demonstrated rehabilitation in the community pending disposition of sentence – community protection – public interest in not disturbing rehabilitative progress – substantial variation of statutory ratio – analogy with Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence – where leniency might lead to or maintain reform
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [1990] 169 CLR 525 House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287 R v Markarian [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v Moon (2000) 117 A Crim R 497 R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394 Veen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex Stuart Rycroft (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr L Betts – ODPP Mr P Townsend - Offender
File Number(s):	2023/30479; 2023/47810