R v Schneider - [2019] NSWDC 483

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Schneider [2019] NSWDC 483
Hearing dates: 12 July 2019
Decision date: 12 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 9 months with a non parole period 1 year 9 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - possess prohibited firearm - assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s7(1), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s59(1)
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Andrew Schneider (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Brown (ODPP)
Mr Jauncey (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2016/4711; 2018/216581
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Andrew Schneider, you appear for sentence today principally in relation to one offence, that is, possessing a prohibited firearm. This involves a contravention of s 7(1) of the Firearms Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years’ imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of four years’ imprisonment.
I shall turn to the facts surrounding that offence shortly, but, at the time you committed that offence on 10 July 2018, you were on a suspended sentence for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, which another Judge of this Court imposed on you and your relevant three co-offenders on 7 September 2017.
The suspended sentence which you received was for a period of 2 years. At the conclusion of his Honour’s remarks, his Honour said to you: “If you breach any of those conditions and you do not turn up, you will be breached on your s 12. You will come back here and you will probably have to go to gaol. It is as simple as that.”
As your counsel has correctly submitted today, the breach of that bond by the firearm offence could not be regarded as trivial; nor are there good reasons for excusing your failure to comply with the bond. Accordingly, on the call up, that bond is revoked.
Nine months into the s 12 bond, police executed a search warrant at a series of premises. One of those premises were premises where your partner (Ms Swan) lived. You and your cousin, Brent, were frequently at those premises.
When the police executed the warrant, they found a sawn-off, semi-automatic, 22 calibre rifle in a bedroom behind a television. That rifle had been purchased two months beforehand. You were present when it was purchased. You contributed 50% of the purchase price; the other purchaser was your cousin, Brent. After it was purchased, it was shortened, but the Crown does not allege that it was you who caused the rifle to be shortened. It was in working order. There is no evidence before the Court, however, that it was loaded or that there was access to any ammunition. By your plea, you have accepted that you were relevantly in possession of that firearm.
This constitutes the possession offence for which you are also to be sentenced today.
In terms of its objective seriousness for an offence of this kind, in my…

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 Schneider

Details

AGLC: R v Schneider [2019] NSWDC 483
Case: [2019] NSWDC 483
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Schneider involved the defendant, Schneider, who was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm and assaulting someone causing actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution sought an appropriate sentence for Schneider's crimes, considering the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution. Schneider, represented by counsel, argued for a lesser sentence, citing mitigating factors such as his otherwise good character and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate aggregate sentence for the two offences, and the imposition of a non-parole period. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for each offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for specific and general deterrence. The court also needed to balance the harm caused to the victim against any mitigating factors presented by Schneider.

The Supreme Court, after evaluating the evidence and submissions, determined that an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and nine months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The court emphasised the seriousness of possessing a prohibited firearm and the impact of the assault on the victim. While acknowledging Schneider's mitigating factors, the court concluded that a significant custodial sentence was necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect the community.

The court ordered Schneider to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and nine months, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the gravity of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 9 months with a non parole period 1 year 9 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 Schneider [2019] NSWDC 483
Hearing dates:	12 July 2019
Decision date:	12 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 9 months with a non parole period 1 year 9 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - possess prohibited firearm - assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Legislation Cited:	Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s7(1), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s59(1)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Andrew Schneider (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Brown (ODPP) Mr Jauncey (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2016/4711; 2018/216581
Publication restriction:	Nil