R v TAYLOR - [2019] NSWDC 163

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v TAYLOR [2019] NSWDC 163
Hearing dates: 3 May, 16 May 2019
Date of orders: 23 May 2019
Decision date: 23 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced on substantive matter (taking into account matters on Form 1) 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, back up charges released pursuant to s10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentencing – relevant factors on sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited: The Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255
McGoldrick v R [2012] NSWCCA 7
R v Clifford [2008] NSWCCA 190
R v French [2010] NSWCCA 24
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nicholas Kevin TAYLOR (Accused)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A Hanshaw (DPP)
Mr N Rump (Aboriginal Legal Service)

File Number(s): 2017/377435
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The offender pleaded guilty at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 20 February 2019 to one count contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 namely:

That (he) between the 12th day of December 2017 and the 13th day of December 2017 at Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the shop of Andrew Stein situate at Unit 2 of 22 Edward Street, Wagga Wagga, and then in the said shop did commit a serious indictable offence (namely) larceny in circumstances of aggravation, (namely) he used a white Holden Commodore Station Wagon bearing New South Wales registration DDE10K as an offensive weapon to ran through the front doors of the residence whilst in the company of other offenders.

The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 3 May 2019 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
The maximum penalty for the offence for which the offender appears for sentence is 20 years imprisonment. Parliament has specified a standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment in respect of the offence. As the matter carries a standard non-parole period I acknowledge that I am engaged in a one-step instinctive process in which two of the principal guideposts are the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period.
The offender asks that when passing sentence in respect of the charge contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act I take into account a total of seven matters set out on a Form 1 document. In passing sentence I will need to apply and give proper effect to the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of…

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 [2019] NSWDC 163
Case: [2019] NSWDC 163
Decision Date: 23 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taylor was heard in a court where the defendant faced charges related to criminal activities. The defendant was convicted on several counts and was subject to sentencing. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence taking into consideration the severity of the crimes and various mitigating and aggravating factors presented during the trial. The judge had to weigh the nature of the offences, the impact on the victims, and any personal circumstances of the defendant that might influence the sentence.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate punishment for the defendant's crimes, which included evaluating the relevant factors that should be considered in determining the sentence. This included the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and any personal circumstances that could affect the sentencing. The court also had to consider statutory guidelines and precedents in order to arrive at a fair and just sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the severity of the crimes, the harm caused to the victims, and the defendant's background. The judge noted the defendant's criminal history and the impact of the offences on the victims, but also took into account any mitigating factors presented. The court determined that a sentence of three years and four months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of two years. The additional charges were dismissed under section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the punishment and rehabilitation of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced on substantive matter (taking into account matters on Form 1) 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, back up charges released pursuant to s10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

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 [2019] NSWDC 163
Hearing dates:	3 May, 16 May 2019
Date of orders:	23 May 2019
Decision date:	23 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced on substantive matter (taking into account matters on Form 1) 3 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, back up charges released pursuant to s10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentencing – relevant factors on sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Merrin [2007] NSWCCA 255 McGoldrick v R [2012] NSWCCA 7 R v Clifford [2008] NSWCCA 190 R v French [2010] NSWCCA 24 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Nicholas Kevin TAYLOR (Accused)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr A Hanshaw (DPP) Mr N Rump (Aboriginal Legal Service)
File Number(s):	2017/377435
Publication restriction:	No