District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stanley [2020] NSWDC 879 Hearing dates: 7 December 2020 Date of orders: 14 December 2020 Decision date: 14 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Buscombe DCJ Decision: Fixed sentence imposed one of 6 months imprisonment
Catchwords: CRIME — Public order offences — Affray
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 93C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 56
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Stephen Stanley (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms Campbell (Crown)
Mr Zoutendijk (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/52197 Publication restriction: Nil
SENTENCE
Introduction
-
The offender is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offence: on 1 September 2019 at Parklea, he used unlawful violence towards Siah Monchisada by conduct that would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. That is the offence of affray under s 93C of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and there is no applicable standard non‑parole period.
The Facts
-
The facts are agreed and the Crown also tendered CCTV footage of the incident which gives rise to the charge and what follows is taken from the agreed facts and what I have been able to derive from the CCTV footage.
-
At approximately 9.07am on 1 September 2019, inmates from area 5 at Parklea Correctional Centre were being escorted through the 5 gate area towards the correctional centre’s chapel. There was a group of inmates being led through including Monchisada, Scoli, Shamim and this offender through the 5 gate area towards the clinic gate. As they go through the gate and come upon some legal visit boxes, Monchisada and Scoli can be seen to go behind the legal visit boxes. Mr Stanley is said to walk on and was in reasonable proximity to a Mr Shamim.
-
Following directions from correctional officers, Monchisada, Scoli and another unknown inmate walked from behind the legal visit boxes towards the clinic gate and N5 area and as they emerged, Mr Stanley was in that area. Shortly after that, and the whole incident takes a very short period of time, Mr Stanley seemed to walk over towards Monchisada and engage in a verbal exchange. The whole Crown case relies on the CCTV footage, nobody apart from the correctional officers, was prepared to make any statements about the matter which is commonly the case in gaol assaults.
-
Mr Stanley and Monchisada are observed to move closer together and continue with a verbal exchange. Scoli walked a short distance in front of them. As Monchisada and Mr Stanley continue to walk in the general direction of the clinic gate, they then engage in verbal discussion. Monchisada was approached by inmate Scoli. Mr Stanley is nearby. At one point, Scoli and Shamim are walking towards the clinic gate at the same time Monchisada and Mr Stanley moved to the centre of the 5 gate area and appeared to loiter at the back of…
Continue reading R v Stanley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Stanley [2020] NSWDC 879
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 879
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue at the heart of this case was the interpretation and application of the definition of affray under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court was required to consider whether Stanley's conduct amounted to a fight or violent disturbance in a public place, and whether his actions caused others to fear for their safety. The prosecution needed to prove that Stanley's participation in the affray was significant, going beyond mere presence or passive involvement. The defence argued that Stanley's involvement was minimal and that he did not contribute to the escalation of the disturbance.
The court, in assessing the evidence, concluded that Stanley's actions did indeed contribute to the affray. The judge found that Stanley's conduct, while not the sole cause, was a significant factor in the disturbance and caused others to fear for their safety. The court determined that Stanley's involvement was not merely passive, but active enough to warrant criminal liability. Given the nature of the offence and the need for public deterrence, the court imposed a fixed sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended after 12 months. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the circumstances of the case, taking into account Stanley's lack of a prior criminal record and his cooperation with authorities post-incident.
Orders
Orders of the court
Fixed sentence imposed one of 6 months imprisonment
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.