Aggregate sentence of 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
Catchwords:
APPEAL - Appeal against sentence
CRIME – Sentence for District Court matters - endanger safety of person on railway - Cause obstruction to railway locomotive - Recklessly damage property - Convicted offender enter land to commit indictable offence (larceny)
CRIME – Sentence Local Court matters – Drive while disqualified-larceny- dishonestly obtain benefit by deception
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE− accumulation of sentences on existing Local Court sentences
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - early plea - worst case offending – deprived background – childhood trauma – institutionalised offender- extremely reckless behaviour- remorse - time in custody worse now than ever - locked in for the majority of the time, sometimes four out in a two-person cell - $9,500,000 in property damage - endanger safety punishment for potential not actual harm
[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 Simpson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Simpson [2022] NSWDC 638
Case
[2022] NSWDC 638
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Simpson, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for various offences including endangering the safety of persons on a railway, causing obstruction to a railway locomotive, recklessly damaging property, and entering land to commit an indictable offence. The offences were committed while the appellant was already serving a sentence for driving while disqualified, larceny, and dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception in the Local Court. The District Court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The court was required to decide whether the sentence was appropriate, considering the appellant's early plea, deprived background, childhood trauma, institutionalised history, extremely reckless behaviour, remorse, and the significant property damage caused.
The court considered the appellant's background, which included a deprived upbringing, childhood trauma, and a history of being institutionalised. These factors were weighed alongside the extremely reckless nature of the offending and the substantial property damage caused. The court noted the appellant's early plea and some evidence of remorse, but emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the need for punishment rather than deterrence. The court also highlighted that the appellant's time in custody was worse now than ever, with the appellant often locked in for the majority of the time, sometimes four out of a two-person cell. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's background and the severity of the offending.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and six months was upheld. The court found that the sentence adequately reflected the gravity of the appellant's offences, particularly the endangerment of public safety on a railway and the substantial property damage caused. The court also considered the appellant's deprived background and institutionalised history, but ultimately determined that the punishment for the potential harm caused by the offending was more significant than the actual harm. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence of 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months