R v Stenzel

Case [2022] NSWDC 756

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stenzel [2022] NSWDC 756
Hearing dates: 14 and 21 April 2022
Date of orders: 21 April 2022
Decision date: 21 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Domestic violence — “Domestic violence offence”

CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT — Traffic law — Licensing of drivers — Disqualification — Police pursuit

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Presence of child

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment — Incarceration has not proved an effective deterrent

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Aggregate sentences — Avoiding a crushing sentence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness ­— Victim impact statement

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Moral culpability — Mental health — Background of profound childhood deprivation

SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis — Pre-sentence reports

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Evidence Act1995 (NSW)

Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Browning v R [2015] NSWCCA 147

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37

Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150

Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Fernando v R (1992) A Crim R 59

Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169

Lai v R [2021] NSW 217

Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18

Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226

Munda v State of Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38

Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182

R v JDX; JDX v R [2017] NSWCCA 9

R v Lawrence (2005) NSWCCA 91

R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183

R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Texts Cited:

District Court Criminal Practice Note 20

Category:Sentence
Parties: Shay-Lin Stenzel (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
A Booker (for the offender)

Solicitors:
Legal Aid (for the offender)
D Coulton for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/307487

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This sentence hearing commenced on 14 April 2022, it was then adjourned to the next sitting day, today, for sentence. Evidence and submissions concluded last Thursday. This is the first day I have been back in chambers, so I have not yet been in a…

Continue reading R v Stenzel

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stenzel [2022] NSWDC 756
Case
[2022] NSWDC 756
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal against sentence by the defendant, Stenzel, who had been found guilty of various criminal offences including domestic violence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and a driving offence related to a police pursuit. The trial judge had imposed an aggregate imprisonment sentence of 4 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to take into account mitigating factors such as his plea of guilty and his background of childhood deprivation. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate, given the objective seriousness of the offences and the impact on the victims.

The primary legal issues for the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the defendant's moral culpability, the impact on the victims, and the appropriate aggregate sentence. The court also considered the defendant's plea of guilty, his background of childhood deprivation, and the impact of incarceration on him as an Aboriginal offender.

The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including the defendant's plea of guilty, his background of childhood deprivation, and the impact of incarceration on him as an Aboriginal offender. The court noted that the defendant had a history of offending and that incarceration had not proved an effective deterrent. However, the court also noted the objective seriousness of the offences and the impact on the victims. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not fail to take into account any relevant mitigating factors.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The orders of the trial judge were affirmed, and the defendant's aggregate imprisonment sentence of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months

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.