R v Van Huisstede - [2025] NSWDC 169

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Van Huisstede [2025] NSWDC 169
Hearing dates: 19 March 2025
Date of orders: 19 March 2025
Decision date: 19 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence –
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months
Severity appeal –
Appeal is dismissed – Confirm all orders of the court below

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Firearms offences — Appeal against sentence — Sentence appeal dismissed
CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation
CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and steal — Take and drive a conveyance
CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess unregistered / unauthorised firearm in a public place — Possess loaded firearm in a public place
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Totality — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Identifies as Indigenous — Drug addiction — Mental health — Childhood trauma — Childhood sexual assault

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Firearms Act1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
Mapp v R [2010] NSWCCA 269
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Ponfield v R (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435
R v AZ (2011) 205 A Crim R 222
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

Texts Cited:
W Wan, S Poynton and D Weatherburn, “Does Parole Supervision Reduce the Risk of Re-offending?” (2016) 49 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 497

Category: Sentence
Parties: Adam Lawrence Van Huisstede (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
H Dreher solicitor for Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (for the offender)
K Mackinnon solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/434968; 2024/122264; 2024/125294

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

When sentencing, a judge is required to identify all of the factors that are relevant to the sentence. A judge should discuss their significance and ultimately make a value judgment about the appropriate individual sentences and the appropriate aggregate sentence, given all of the factors before the Court: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51] (McHugh J).
Today I am asked to deal with sentencing for a number 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 Van Huisstede

Details

AGLC: R v Van Huisstede [2025] NSWDC 169
Case: [2025] NSWDC 169
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Van Huisstede, appealed against his sentence and conviction for multiple firearms offences, possession of an unregistered and unauthorised firearm in a public place, and possessing a loaded firearm in a public place. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant had previously been convicted of domestic violence, stalking or intimidation, breaking and entering, and stealing a conveyance. The appellant pleaded guilty to the firearms offences.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether it should be varied in accordance with the provisions of the Sentencing Act. The court also had to consider the subjective circumstances of the appellant, including his Indigenous status, drug addiction, mental health, childhood trauma, and childhood sexual assault. The court further considered the role of sentencing guidelines and whether they should be applied to the appellant's case.

The court found that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court held that the appellant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offences, and the need for general deterrence all warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also held that the appellant's subjective circumstances did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that the sentencing guidelines were relevant to the appellant's case but did not bind the court. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed all orders of the court below.

The court ordered that the appellant's aggregate sentence of imprisonment be 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months. The court also dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence –

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months

Severity appeal –

Appeal is dismissed – Confirm all orders of the court below

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 Van Huisstede [2025] NSWDC 169
Hearing dates:	19 March 2025
Date of orders:	19 March 2025
Decision date:	19 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence – Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 10 months Severity appeal – Appeal is dismissed – Confirm all orders of the court below
Catchwords:	CRIME — Appeals — Firearms offences — Appeal against sentence — Sentence appeal dismissed CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and steal — Take and drive a conveyance CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess unregistered / unauthorised firearm in a public place — Possess loaded firearm in a public place SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Totality — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Identifies as Indigenous — Drug addiction — Mental health — Childhood trauma — Childhood sexual assault
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Firearms Act1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216 Mapp v R [2010] NSWCCA 269 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Ponfield v R (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435 R v AZ (2011) 205 A Crim R 222 R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Texts Cited:	W Wan, S Poynton and D Weatherburn, “Does Parole Supervision Reduce the Risk of Re-offending?” (2016) 49 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 497
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Adam Lawrence Van Huisstede (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: H Dreher solicitor for Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (for the offender) K Mackinnon solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/434968; 2024/122264; 2024/125294