R v van Krevel - [2024] NSWDC 146

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v van Krevel [2024] NSWDC 146
Hearing dates: 21 February 2024
Date of orders: 21 February 2024
Decision date: 21 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
CRIME — Domestic violence — “Domestic violence offence”
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness — Plea of guilty — History of similar offending
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Deprived and abusive childhood — Mental disorders — Borderline Personality Disorder — Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder — Special circumstances

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

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Dong v R [2021] NSWCCA 82
Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229
R v Millwood [2012] NSWSC 2
R v van Krevel [2003] NSWSC 227
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Belinda Jean van Krevel (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
T George solicitor advocate for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
M Kwan solicitor for Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2023/74449

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

Sentencing judges must weight and balance a number of competing considerations. They are often complex and, on occasions such as those here, intricate. Facts which point in favour of one consideration may point in a different direction in relation to other considerations: Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim R 67. Every offence and every offender must be considered individually. The circumstances of offenders and the circumstances of the offending differ. Every act must be considered in the light of its circumstances and the circumstances of the offender, and in the light of often conflicting purposes involved in the sentencing exercise.
Every sentencing exercise ultimately aims to protect the community from future crime. Every sentencing exercise must attempt to come to a just, appropriate, and proportionate sentence.
In April 2003 Belinda van Krevel, who was born in 1980, was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for soliciting a man to murder her father. She served all of that sentence; she was not allowed to take up the parole set out in that original sentence.
On 26 June 2013 Belinda van Krevel, in the home they shared, stabbed her then partner 5 times. She received a 3 year sentence. She served most of that time in custody as her parole was twice revoked.
On 6…

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 Krevel

Details

AGLC: R v van Krevel [2024] NSWDC 146
Case: [2024] NSWDC 146
Decision Date: 21 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, van Krevel, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where van Krevel appealed against the severity of his sentence. The appeal centred on the application of various legal principles in determining the appropriate penalty for his crimes, particularly in light of his personal circumstances.

The court was required to balance the objective seriousness of the crimes against mitigating factors, including van Krevel's history of mental health issues and a deprived and abusive childhood. The sentencing judge had considered the crimes as particularly egregious due to the presence of domestic violence and the breach of conditional liberty. The appellant's plea of guilty was acknowledged but weighed against his history of similar offending. The court had to scrutinise the sentencing procedure to ensure that the judge's application of the instinctive synthesis approach was both lawful and appropriate.

The Supreme Court upheld the original sentence, finding that the judge had adequately considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court recognised van Krevel's troubled background but concluded that the severity of his crimes necessitated a substantial custodial sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

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 Krevel [2024] NSWDC 146
Hearing dates:	21 February 2024
Date of orders:	21 February 2024
Decision date:	21 February 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm CRIME — Domestic violence — “Domestic violence offence” SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness — Plea of guilty — History of similar offending SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Deprived and abusive childhood — Mental disorders — Borderline Personality Disorder — Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Dong v R [2021] NSWCCA 82 Engert v The Queen (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217 Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229 R v Millwood [2012] NSWSC 2 R v van Krevel [2003] NSWSC 227 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Belinda Jean van Krevel (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: T George solicitor advocate for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) M Kwan solicitor for Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2023/74449