R v Steele - [2024] NSWDC 511

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Steele [2024] NSWDC 511
Hearing dates: 18 October 2024
Date of orders: 31 October 2024
Decision date: 31 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [101]-[104]

Catchwords:
Specially aggravated kidnapping; robbery in company; aggregate sentence; application of the Bugmy principle

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cahyadi v R 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
KT v R (2008) 2008 A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51
R v Achurch (2011) 216 A Crim R 152; [2011] NSWCCA 186
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183

Category: Sentence
Parties: Bailey Steele (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Kidd (the Crown)
Solicitors:
Mr C O’Brien (the offender)
Ms V O’Bryan (the Crown)

File Number(s): 2022/00213630
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 4 July 2024 the offender was arraigned on an Indictment containing three Counts. Following a trial by jury the offender was found guilty of Counts 1 and 3 on the Indictment as follows:-

Count 1 On or about 12 February 2022, at Terrigal and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, while in the company of Brock Pearson, “RS”, Ethan Gualdi and Darius Bagang, detained Jesse Tarasenko without his consent, and with the intention of committing a serious indictable offence, namely intimidation, and at the time actual bodily harm was occasioned to Jesse Tarasenko.

Count 3 On or about 12 February 2022, at North Gosford in the State of New South Wales, while in the company of Brock Pearson, “RS”, Darius Bagang, Ethan Gualdi and each other, robbed Brandon Alamango of cash and a gold watch, the property of Brandon Alamango.

Count 1 is an offence pursuant to s86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 and the maximum penalty prescribed is imprisonment for 25 years. Count 3 is an offence pursuant to s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years. There is no standard non-parole period prescribed for either offence.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 18 October 2024. The Crown bundle became Exhibit A. It set out the maximum penalties for both offences and the time the offender had spent in custody, namely 3 months and 3 days up until 18 October 2024. It also set out that the offence occurred when the offender was subject to an ICO imposed on 3 September 2020 for 21 months expiring on 2 June 2022 for an offence of supply prohibited drugs.
Exhibit A.2 was the offender’s criminal history which included offences of stalk/intimidate with intend fear…

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 Steele

Details

AGLC: R v Steele [2024] NSWDC 511
Case: [2024] NSWDC 511
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steele involved the respondent, Steele, who was convicted for his involvement in a crime that included specially aggravated kidnapping and robbery committed in company. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was against both conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate application of the Bugmy principle when imposing an aggregate sentence for multiple offences committed by the same offender. The Bugmy principle requires that sentences for multiple offences be imposed in a way that avoids excessive punishment, ensuring that the aggregate sentence is no more than the sum of the separate penalties for each offence. The court had to consider whether the original sentencing judge had properly applied this principle and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the severity of the crimes committed.

The court held that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the Bugmy principle in imposing the aggregate sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the matter was remitted for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for multiple offences do not result in excessive punishment, and that the aggregate sentence should reflect the principle that the whole should not be greater than the sum of its parts.

The orders of the court mandated that a full-time custodial sentence be imposed. The specific details of the sentence, including the duration and any additional conditions, were set out in the judgment from paragraphs [101] to [104].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [101]-[104]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Steele [2024] NSWDC 511
Hearing dates:	18 October 2024
Date of orders:	31 October 2024
Decision date:	31 October 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [101]-[104]
Catchwords:	Specially aggravated kidnapping; robbery in company; aggregate sentence; application of the Bugmy principle
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 KT v R (2008) 2008 A Crim R 112; [2008] NSWCCA 51 R v Achurch (2011) 216 A Crim R 152; [2011] NSWCCA 186 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Bailey Steele (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Kidd (the Crown) Solicitors: Mr C O’Brien (the offender) Ms V O’Bryan (the Crown)
File Number(s):	2022/00213630
Publication restriction:	Nil.