R v Sangster - [2022] NSWDC 694

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sangster [2022] NSWDC 694
Hearing dates: 5 October 2022
Date of orders: 5 October 2022
Decision date: 05 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 3 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Aggravated Break and enter & commit serious indictable offence - people present
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty pela- impact of offending on victims and community- need for punishment- background of trauma and deprivation- long history of offending as a juvenile- first adult gaol sentence- committed on Children’s Court parole - substantial finding of special circumstances- release subject to SPA determination

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571;[2013] HCA 37
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207
Ponfield v R [1999] NSWCCA 435; (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58

Category: Sentence
Parties: Alex Sangster (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms I Attwooll, Solicitor, Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (for the offender)Ms J Azad (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2021/00269438

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

On the night of 6 and 7 September 2021 Alex Sangster, the offender, went to the Wollongong suburb of Balgownie. There he committed several serious offences. Two are for sentence today, and three others will be dealt with on a Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Form 1 when I sentence for the second of the matters.
The two matters for sentence involved the aggravated breaking and entering and committing the offence of larceny in the garages attached to the homes of the residents. The offences were aggravated because Sangster, given the hour of the night, was aware people would be present in the homes. Those offences are charged pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act1900. They carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and for an offence that taking into account only objective factors, falls in the middle of the range, there is a minimum standard non-parole period, that is minimum time in custody, of five years imprisonment.
If the minimum of five years was imposed it would, tragically, be a quarter of the life of this young man. The maximum penalty equates to the time Sangster has been on the planet. While those maximums and the standard are matters I have to take into account, there are many factors here that mean that I will not be imposing anything like the maximum or the standard non-parole period. But, content has to be given to that standard non-parole period.
A police investigation led to the arrest of the offender. He indicated he would plead guilty in the…

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 Sangster

Details

AGLC: R v Sangster [2022] NSWDC 694
Case: [2022] NSWDC 694
Decision Date: 05 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sangster, was convicted of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence while people were present. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues for the court to decide were the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes, considering factors such as the impact on the victims, the community, the need for punishment, the defendant's background of trauma and deprivation, and his extensive history of offending as a juvenile. Additionally, the court had to consider the fact that this was the defendant's first adult gaol sentence, committed on Children's Court parole, and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines.

The court carefully examined the defendant's background and history of trauma and deprivation, noting the significant impact these factors had on his offending behaviour. The court also took into account the defendant's extensive history of offending as a juvenile, which demonstrated a pattern of criminal activity that began at a young age. In assessing the impact of the offending on the victims and the community, the court found that the defendant's actions had caused significant distress and harm to the victims and had the potential to undermine community confidence in the justice system. The need for punishment was considered, taking into account the severity of the offences and the defendant's lack of remorse. The court also considered the defendant's first adult gaol sentence and the fact that he had committed the offence while on Children's Court parole. Ultimately, the court found substantial special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines.

In light of the above considerations, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and one month, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The court also ordered that the defendant's release be subject to a Supervision Order under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). This decision reflects the court's careful consideration of the relevant factors and its aim to balance the needs of the community, the victims, and the defendant in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 3 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months.

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 Sangster [2022] NSWDC 694
Hearing dates:	5 October 2022
Date of orders:	5 October 2022
Decision date:	05 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 3 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Aggravated Break and enter & commit serious indictable offence - people present SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – early guilty pela- impact of offending on victims and community- need for punishment- background of trauma and deprivation- long history of offending as a juvenile- first adult gaol sentence- committed on Children’s Court parole - substantial finding of special circumstances- release subject to SPA determination
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571;[2013] HCA 37 Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56 Henry v R [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207 Ponfield v R [1999] NSWCCA 435; (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Alex Sangster (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms I Attwooll, Solicitor, Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (for the offender)Ms J Azad (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2021/00269438