R v Taylor - [2020] NSWDC 430

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Taylor [2020] NSWDC 430
Hearing dates: 12 June 2020
Decision date: 12 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Kidnapping - Take and detain - actual bodily harm – multiple offenders.
SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea – victim impact –– untested evidence going to objective circumstances of offence not accepted - professional opinions about subjective circumstances accepted - history of mental disorders and domestic violence - assistance to authorities – remorse - role of offender - differing roles - parity principles - drug use - ice bender - good progress on remand - harsh custodial environment will have a negative impact on rehabilitation - special circumstances.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999

Cases Cited:
Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
Green v The Queen [2001] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw [2019] NSWDC 848
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

Category: Sentence
Parties: Maddison Taylor (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Humpreys (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Justine Hall (for the offender)
Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00008818

sentence – ex tempore revised

About 8:00 pm on 26 April 2018 Mr Fitzpatrick was contacted by someone using Maddison Taylor’s Facebook profile. Arrangements were made for Taylor to pick up Mr Fitzpatrick in Avondale Road, Avondale. At about 8:49pm Taylor, in a car driven by another woman, stopped and picked up Mr Fitzpatrick at that location.
The other woman’s trial is listed for hearing in this Court in December 2020.
About 500 metres down the road Taylor told the driver to stop. Standing by the road was Mark Chambers. Chambers had grown up knowing Fitzpatrick but after a disagreement some years earlier they were not close. Chambers went to the car window and made accusations to Mr Fitzpatrick who replied, “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. Chambers punched Mr Fitzpatrick and pulled him from the car. There was a scuffle. Another man, Raynor Earnshaw joined the scuffle. Chambers put Mr Fitzpatrick in a choke hold. He and Earnshaw then put him into the boot of the car; which they shut. Entirely understandably Mr Fitzpatrick feared for his safety. He could hear Chambers yelling at him, "You're dead, wait till we stop. I'm going to chop you." Mr Fitzpatrick kicked at the inside of the boot, he was trying to get out, he was yelling. Chambers got into the car. Earnshaw…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2020] NSWDC 430
Case: [2020] NSWDC 430
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the appellant stood accused of involvement in the kidnapping and detention of a victim, during which actual bodily harm was inflicted. The matter was heard in the higher court, where the accused's legal team and the prosecution presented their arguments on the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court was required to consider a range of factors, including the early guilty plea, the impact on the victim, the circumstances of the offence, and the accused's personal history.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the relevance of early guilty pleas, victim impact statements, and the consideration of objective versus subjective circumstances of the offence. The court was tasked with weighing the accused's history of mental disorders, domestic violence, and drug use, against their assistance to authorities and expressions of remorse. Additionally, the court needed to consider the varying roles of the offenders in the crime and the principle of parity in sentencing.

The court determined that while the early guilty plea and expressions of remorse were mitigating factors, the objective circumstances of the offence were particularly severe. The court accepted professional opinions regarding the accused's subjective circumstances, including their mental health history, but did not accept untested evidence that might have further supported these claims. The court also acknowledged the accused's good progress on remand and the potential negative impact of a harsh custodial environment on their rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found the accused's role in the crime to be significant but not the most egregious. The court sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.

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 Taylor [2020] NSWDC 430
Hearing dates:	12 June 2020
Decision date:	12 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 1 month.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Kidnapping - Take and detain - actual bodily harm – multiple offenders. SENTENCE - Relevant factors on sentence - early guilty plea – victim impact –– untested evidence going to objective circumstances of offence not accepted - professional opinions about subjective circumstances accepted - history of mental disorders and domestic violence - assistance to authorities – remorse - role of offender - differing roles - parity principles - drug use - ice bender - good progress on remand - harsh custodial environment will have a negative impact on rehabilitation - special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999
Cases Cited:	Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246 Green v The Queen [2001] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw [2019] NSWDC 848 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Maddison Taylor (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Humpreys (for the offender) Solicitors: Justine Hall (for the offender) Ms A Cabrera (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00008818