R v Vute - [2021] NSWDC 639

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Vute [2021] NSWDC 639
Hearing dates: 20 August 2021 & 01 October 2021
Date of orders: 01 October 2021
Decision date: 01 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation
CRIME — Property offences — Enter dwelling-house with intent to commit serious indictable offence
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Carver (2003) NSWCCA 243
R v Harris (2007) NSWCCA 130
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Walsh v R (2020) NSWCCA 183

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Anasa Vute (offender)
Representation:
Tara Reddy (Crown)
Anoj Anastasius (solicitor for the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (offender)

File Number(s): 2020/003287847

EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGEMENT

Introduction

Anasa Vute is now 41 years of age, born in the first half of 1980. He pleaded guilty in the Local Court to two offences.
The first of those, contrary to s 113(2) Crimes Act 1900 is in the following terms:

That he, on 17 September 2020 at Redfern in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the dwelling house belonging to Xiao Wei Tan situated at unit XXXX/XXXX Bourke Street, Redfern with intent to commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely larceny, in circumstances of aggravation, namely there were persons present within the said dwelling house.

The maximum penalty specified for that offence is imprisonment for 14 years. There is no standard non-parole period specified for the purposes of Part 4 div 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The second offence to which he pleaded guilty is one contrary to s 111(1) Crimes Act 1900 in the following terms:

That he, on 6 October 2020 at Rosebery in the State of New South Wales did enter the dwelling house of Alice Brennan situated at XX Princess Avenue, Rosebery, with intent to commit a serious indictable offence therein namely larceny.

There are two offences listed on a Form 1 by means of which the…

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 Vute

Details

AGLC: R v Vute [2021] NSWDC 639
Case: [2021] NSWDC 639
Decision Date: 01 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Vute, the appellant was found guilty of multiple offences including possessing a prohibited drug, breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, and committing a serious indictable offence while in a dwelling-house. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant argued against the imposition of an aggregate sentence for the multiple offences, contending that the court should impose separate sentences instead. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing approach for multiple offences committed by the appellant.

The court considered the nature of the offences and their objective seriousness, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the appellant's criminal history. The court found that the offences were serious, involving both drug possession and aggravated break and enter offences. The court also considered that the offences were not trivial, but rather involved significant harm to the victim and the community. The court determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate because the offences were part of a single course of conduct and the appellant's criminal history demonstrated a pattern of similar offending. The court held that the aggregate sentence would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and serve the purposes of deterrence and denunciation.

In light of the above, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of four years and three months with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The court emphasised the need to balance the objectives of sentencing, including the protection of the community, with the individual circumstances of the offender. The court found that an aggregate sentence was the most appropriate way to achieve these objectives in this case. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate sentencing approach for multiple offences committed by an offender with a history of similar offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Vute [2021] NSWDC 639
Hearing dates:	20 August 2021 & 01 October 2021
Date of orders:	01 October 2021
Decision date:	01 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Property offences — Enter dwelling-house with intent to commit serious indictable offence SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2002] NSWCCA 518 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Carver (2003) NSWCCA 243 R v Harris (2007) NSWCCA 130 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14 Walsh v R (2020) NSWCCA 183
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Anasa Vute (offender)
Representation:	Tara Reddy (Crown) Anoj Anastasius (solicitor for the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (offender)
File Number(s):	2020/003287847