Legal Research
Cases
R v SLD (No 4)

R v SLD (No 4)

Case [2024] NSWDC 594 16 December 2024

Sentencing

Extended Supervision Order

Non-parole Period

Parole Order

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SLD (No 4) [2024] NSWDC 594
Hearing dates: 12 December 2024
Date of orders: 16 December 2024
Decision date: 16 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 April 2025.
(2) I impose a non-parole period of 1 year 1 month to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 November 2024.
(3) As the sentence imposed is less than 3 years, pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 the offender is taken to be to be subject to a parole order (being a “statutory parole order”) directing the release of the offender on parole at the end of the non-parole period (being 23 November 2024).
(4) Therefore, the offender is entitled to immediate release on a parole pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – high risk offender – failing to comply with extended supervision order – verdict following judge alone trial – prior breaches of extended supervision order

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s 158
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, ss 3, 12
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3, 21A(2)(d), 21A(2)(j), 66

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
Monteiro v R [2022] NSWCCA 37
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
State of New South Wales v SLD (Final) [2023] NSWSC 978

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
SLD
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Bhutani (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Ryan Payten Le Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00337580
Publication restriction: In accordance with s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 there is to be a prohibition on the publishing or broadcasting of the offender's name with respect to these proceedings.

Judgment

The offender is to be sentenced with respect to one offence of fail to comply with extended supervision order contrary to s 12 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act) following a judge alone trial commencing 30 September 2024. A verdict of guilty was entered following judgment on 16 October 2024, whilst verdicts of not guilty were entered with respect to two remaining counts similarly alleging breach of s 12 of the Act (R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480 (the verdict judgment).
The maximum penalty for the offence, being five years imprisonment, acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.
Admitted on behalf the Crown were following:-

Indictment

Criminal history

Custodial record

Facts on sentence for H93643906 and H80434767,…

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 SLD (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v SLD (No 4) [2024] NSWDC 594
Case: [2024] NSWDC 594
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SLD (No 4) involved the defendant, SLD, who was before the court for breaching an extended supervision order. The proceedings were held in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant had previously been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving violence, and was subject to an extended supervision order as part of the sentence. The dispute centred on whether the defendant had complied with the conditions of the order, and whether the breaches warranted further sentencing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's breaches of the extended supervision order constituted sufficient grounds for a new sentence. The court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the breaches, the defendant's history of non-compliance, and the principles of sentencing for breaches of supervision orders. The court also had to decide on the appropriate length of the new sentence and whether it should include a non-parole period.

The court found that the defendant's breaches of the extended supervision order were significant and demonstrated a continued risk to the community. Despite the defendant's previous non-compliance, the court determined that the new sentence should not be excessively punitive, but rather should focus on deterrence and rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence of 1 year and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month, recognising the defendant's potential for reform and the need to balance public safety with the principles of sentencing.

In summary, the court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of 1 year and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month. The defendant is to be released on parole at the end of the non-parole period, in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 April 2025.

(2) I impose a non-parole period of 1 year 1 month to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 November 2024.

(3) As the sentence imposed is less than 3 years, pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 the offender is taken to be to be subject to a parole order (being a “statutory parole order”) directing the release of the offender on parole at the end of the non-parole period (being 23 November 2024).

(4) Therefore, the offender is entitled to immediate release on a parole pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v SLD (No 4) [2024] NSWDC 594

Most Recent Citation

State of New South Wales v SLD (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 1645

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

State of New South Wales v SLD (Preliminary)
[2024] NSWSC 1645 Para 6

…October 2023 and thus expiring on 23 April 2025. A non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month was set, which expired on 23 November 2024: R v SLD (No 4) [2024] NSWDC 594.…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

R v SLD
[2024] NSWDC 480 Para 1

…r 2024, whilst verdicts of not guilty were entered with respect to two remaining counts similarly alleging breach of s 12 of the Act ( R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480 (the verdict judgment).…
State of New South Wales v SLD (Final)
[2023] NSWSC 978 Para 6

…he offender had been the subject of an extended supervision order in accordance with the orders of Campbell J: State of New South Wales v SLD (Final) [2023] NSWSC 978. The orders included a non-association condition with respect to children. In making the order, Campbell J found that the offender posed “an unaccept…
DC v R
[2023] NSWCCA 82 Para 25

…and accordingly the offender’s moral culpability is reduced: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82.…
Stanley v DPP (NSW)
[2023] HCA 3 Para 38

…In Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ observed: –…
Monteiro v R
[2022] NSWCCA 37 Para 8

…r sexual offence, including the possible commission of an offence of the same kind for which the extended supervision order was imposed: Monteiro v R [2022] NSWCCA 37 at [36]. The offence occurred during the day in a public area attended by numerous people. The interaction was brief, and following an inquiry of the…
Mandranis v The Queen
[2021] NSWCCA 97

…ated, although other considerations must or may be taken into account as prescribed by s 66(3)[89]. R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509 at 531 [86]; Mandranis v The Queen (2021) 289 A Crim R 260 at 270-271 [50]-[51]; cf Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 at [61]. [74] Section 66(2) explains how the sentencing court must engage with th…
Droudis v R
[2020] NSWCCA 322 Para 17

…he offender in oral submissions, it is not of such significance that the quantification of a discount is necessary: Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322 at [98] to [105].…
R v Fangaloka
[2019] NSWCCA 173 Para 61

…ed by s 66(3)[89]. R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509 at 531 [86]; Mandranis v The Queen (2021) 289 A Crim R 260 at 270-271 [50]-[51]; cf Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 at [61]. [74] Section 66(2) explains how the sentencing court must engage with the paramount consideration of community safety. For the purpose of addr…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 23

…levant in determining an appropriate sentence and, to an extent, his moral culpability ought to be reduced: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 at [42] - [44]. However, as the High Court further observed in Bugmy, the Court cannot ignore the offender’s personality disorder, manifesting itself in…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 25

…e circumstances and manner of the interaction with the child’s mother and accordingly the offender’s moral culpability is reduced: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82.…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 25

…on with the child’s mother and accordingly the offender’s moral culpability is reduced: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A(2)(d), 21A(2)(j), 3, 66 5 mentions (from Para 15)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
12, 3 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
158 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v SLD (No 4) [2024] NSWDC 594
Hearing dates:	12 December 2024
Date of orders:	16 December 2024
Decision date:	16 December 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 April 2025. (2) I impose a non-parole period of 1 year 1 month to date from 24 October 2023 and to expire on 23 November 2024. (3) As the sentence imposed is less than 3 years, pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 the offender is taken to be to be subject to a parole order (being a “statutory parole order”) directing the release of the offender on parole at the end of the non-parole period (being 23 November 2024). (4) Therefore, the offender is entitled to immediate release on a parole pursuant to s 158 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – high risk offender – failing to comply with extended supervision order – verdict following judge alone trial – prior breaches of extended supervision order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s 158 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, ss 3, 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3, 21A(2)(d), 21A(2)(j), 66
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322 Monteiro v R [2022] NSWCCA 37 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 State of New South Wales v SLD (Final) [2023] NSWSC 978
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex SLD
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Bhutani (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Ryan Payten Le Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00337580
Publication restriction:	In accordance with s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 there is to be a prohibition on the publishing or broadcasting of the offender's name with respect to these proceedings.