Legal Research
Cases
R v Sharp

R v Sharp

Case [2020] NSWDC 167 7 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 167
Hearing dates: 7 April 2020
Decision date: 07 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 5 years. Non-parole period of 3 years.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – manufacture a military style weapon - use prohibited weapon - improvised explosive device - pipe bomb - low impact explosion.
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentencing – self help-perceived grievance - escalating crimes - bomb used - rare offence - community attitudes - retribution -victim impact - guilty plea – drug use – remorse - family hardship – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application No 1 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146
Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202
Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v WA [ (2013) 249 CLR 600:
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600:
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v JDX [2017] NSWCCA 9
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Tepania v R [20018] NSWCCA 247
Thompson v R (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4.
Texts Cited: Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category: Sentence
Parties: Ryan Sharp (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Mr D Coulton, Solicitor Advocate (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
Solicitors:
Johnston Legal (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00102669

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

Introduction

One of the historic functions of the criminal law has been to discourage those who believe they have been wronged and their friends and families, from resorting to self-help. It is for the police and the Courts to resolve community disputes. If you take the law into your own hands, if you commit violent acts against the property of others the law is clear. If you commit violent acts against others in order to intimidate them the law is clear. You will be punished. Punishment is necessary not just to recognise the harm you did but to vindicate the dignity of those you offended against; punishment is necessary to ensure there is no escalation of conflict within our community: Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600:
In February and March 2019 Ryan Sharp offended against his fellow citizens. His offending escalated and in March 2019 he built and detonated a pipe bomb under a car parked in the driveway of a…

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 Sharp

Details

AGLC: R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 167
Case: [2020] NSWDC 167
Decision Date: 07 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Sharp, the appellant was sentenced for the manufacture of a military-style weapon, specifically an improvised explosive device known as a pipe bomb, which resulted in a low-impact explosion. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court, which applied various legal principles in assessing the appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues involved the consideration of relevant factors that should be weighed in determining the appropriate sentence. These factors included the appellant’s perceived grievances, the escalating nature of the crimes, the use of the bomb, the rarity of such offences, community attitudes, the need for retribution, the impact on the victim, the appellant’s guilty plea, drug use, remorse, family hardship, and any other special circumstances.

The court examined the mitigating and aggravating factors in detail. While acknowledging the appellant's self-help and perceived grievance, the court found that the escalation of the crimes, including the use of an explosive device, was highly concerning. The court also noted the rarity of such offences and the strong community attitudes against the use of prohibited weapons and improvised explosive devices. Retribution and the impact on the victim were given significant weight, as was the appellant’s guilty plea, which was viewed as a mitigating factor. The court took into account the appellant’s drug use and family hardship as additional special circumstances, but balanced these against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years, with a non-parole period of three years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 5 years. Non-parole period of 3 years.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 167

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247
Citation 1 (Para 40)

…an offence in the middle range of seriousness. I am not required to compare and contrast the actual offence with some abstract one, Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, at [103] to [120], but I am required to give content to the standard non‑parole period. As the High Court has made clear, I cannot engage in a staged appr…
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Citation 2 (Para 58)

…f the plea must also be accommodated by an appropriate reduction of 25% in the otherwise appropriate sentences as too should the assistance: Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4.…
R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9
Citation 3 (Para 48)

…hile the material received from Ms Durkin was not supported by evidence on oath and I have to be careful accepting reports at face value: see R v JDX [2017] NSWCCA 9. The history put forward was not going as evidence to my assessment of the objective circumstances of this crime and what was set out by Ms Durkin an…
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Citation 4 (Para 34)

…as not required. There is little difficulty in accepting what was set out. It reflects the expectations and common experience of the Court: R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8. The statement in part reads,…
Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202
Citation 5 (Para 31)

…of the offending. Motive is significicant to how I address both specific and general deterrence, which remain important considerations: Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202.…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…y of those you offended against; punishment is necessary to ensure there is no escalation of conflict within our community: Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600:…
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Citation 7 (Para 3)

…on the offender will suffer punishment and that particular offences will merit severe punishment: Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 8 (Para 30)

…nd the offender’s appreciation of those consequences inform an assessment of the objective seriousness irrespective of motive: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, at [27]. An assessment of the offender’s moral culpability is part of an assessment of objective seriousness.…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 9 (Para 33)

…prohibited weapons offences do operate to increase the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate. So much was made clear in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357. I sentence only for the two matters to which the Form 1 relates and not individually for the Form 1 matters. The increases operate to recognise the…
R v Grube [2005] NSWCCA 140
Citation 10 (Para 33)

…s as with the separate damage to the other car, there has to be a significant increase: Attorney General’s Application No. 1 , at [18]; Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140.…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 11

…encing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application No 1 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146 Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202 Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR…
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Citation 12 (Para 61)

…ent that the minimum period that must be imposed most properly reflect the gravity of his offences and the other purposes of sentences: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21
Citation 13 (Para 3)

…lects the community’s expectation the offender will suffer punishment and that particular offences will merit severe punishment: Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 383
Citation 14 (Para 49)

…eater weight can be accorded to conduct and statements over a period of time which confirm a position of genuine and deeply felt contrition: Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; (2000) 115 A Crim R 104, at [118]. Here Sharp’s untested out of court statements made to third parties or in his letter must be treated with conside…
Regina v Simpson [1999] NSWCCA 367
Citation 15 (Para 61)

…m period that must be imposed most properly reflect the gravity of his offences and the other purposes of sentences: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 55)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 58)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 18)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 17)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 167
Hearing dates:	7 April 2020
Decision date:	07 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 5 years. Non-parole period of 3 years.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – manufacture a military style weapon - use prohibited weapon - improvised explosive device - pipe bomb - low impact explosion. SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentencing – self help-perceived grievance - escalating crimes - bomb used - rare offence - community attitudes - retribution -victim impact - guilty plea – drug use – remorse - family hardship – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application No 1 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146 Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202 Grube v R [2005] NSWCCA 140 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v WA [ (2013) 249 CLR 600: Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v JDX [2017] NSWCCA 9 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Tepania v R [20018] NSWCCA 247 Thompson v R (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4.
Texts Cited:	Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Ryan Sharp (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Mr D Coulton, Solicitor Advocate (for Director of Public Prosecutions) Solicitors: Johnston Legal (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00102669