District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2020] NSWDC 459 Hearing dates: 13 July 2020 Date of orders: 13 July 2020 Decision date: 13 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: A term of imprisonment of three years, six months with a non-parole period of two years, five months: at [37].
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Rehabilitation
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty — Objective seriousness —Purposes of sentencing — Victim impact statement
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Bail pending sentence — Intoxication — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Cordeiro v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 308
Day v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 192
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Tama Smith (Offender)Representation: Ms N Keay (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr P Winch (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/542 Publication restriction: STATUTORY NON-PUBLICATION APPLIES
Section 578A Crimes Act 1900 (any matter that may identify the complainant(s))
Judgment
-
Tama Smith, now aged 45, was found guilty by a jury at Goulburn District Court in February this year of one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years with a standard non-parole period of seven years imprisonment. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are yardsticks in the sentencing process which must be carried out bearing in mind the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which include punishment, denunciation, making the offender accountable for his actions and recognising the harm done to the victim.
-
He was in custody for one day before being granted bail. He was granted bail after the jury’s verdict so that he might return to Queensland and put his affairs in order. It is conceded by Mr Winch of counsel for the offender, that a term of full-time custody is required, and it is unnecessary for me to consider any alternatives. It is clear that a term of imprisonment should take into account the one day in custody already served, so it would commence yesterday, 12 July 2020.
-
The facts on which I must sentence Mr Smith have been outlined by the Crown, and are not contested by Mr Winch as being consistent with the jury’s verdict and the evidence at the trial.
Facts
-
The victim was 39 years old at the time of the offence.
-
Smith was working as a scaffolder in the Southern Highlands and residing at caravan park in Moss Vale at the time.
-
On New Year’s Eve 2018, Smith went to the Argyle Hotel at Moss Vale and started drinking beer with friends. The group spent the afternoon and…
Continue reading R v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Smith [2020] NSWDC 459
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court identified several aggravating factors, including the breach of conditional liberty, which led to Smith reoffending. The court also considered the maximum penalty for the offence and the subjective considerations of the case, including the impact of intoxication at the time of the offence and Smith’s prospects for rehabilitation. The victim impact statement played a significant role in highlighting the consequences of Smith’s actions. The court balanced these factors against mitigating elements, such as Smith’s potential for rehabilitation and the fact that he was on bail at the time of the offence.
After careful consideration, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and five months. This decision took into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the objective seriousness of the crime and the impact on the victim, while also considering Smith’s circumstances and potential for reform. The sentence reflects a balanced approach to the purposes of sentencing, ensuring that justice is served for both the victim and the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
A term of imprisonment of three years, six months with a non-parole period of two years, five months: at [37].
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.