R v Wade

[2019] NSWDC 205

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wade [2019] NSWDC 205
Hearing dates:	3 May 2019
Decision date:	03 May 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months. Non parole period of 2 years 6 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence - objective seriousness – early plea – offence committed on parole – unable to cope with normal community life – drug abuse disorder – anxiety – depression – need for structured release to community – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 5; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Ryan [2017] NSWCCA 209
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Kane Wade (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr D Pace (Legal Aid NSW) (Offender) Ms A Kerr (Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00276044

Judgment – ex tempore revised

1. When he was before the Local Court Kane Wade, the offender now before the court, accepted his guilt for a very serious offence; aggravated break enter and commit an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. It carries a maximum penalty of 20 years gaol, and for an offence which, taking into account only objective factors, falls into the middle of the range, Parliament have said that a standard non‑parole period, that is, a minimum period in gaol, of five years should apply.

2. The maximum penalty and standard non-parole period are guides to the exercise of a judge’s sentencing discretion. Judges must have proper regard to them. A judge has to give content to the standard non‑parole period.

3. Here, the plea of guilty was entered at an early stage. That acceptance of responsibility, the history of the offender, the need to effectively accumulate this sentence on the one he had just been released for, the need for a finding of special circumstances and my finding that given the broad range of matters that could constitute an aggravated offence this matter could not fall in the middle of the range considered objectively; all call for a variation from the standard non-parole period of some length.

4. A judge when sentencing has to start with an assessment of what was done. Here, it is important I recognise that a number of people were hurt by what Wade did that night; one man in particular. I am prepared to accept, as it seems overwhelmingly evident, that what he did was done during a drug fuelled rampage. He was not thinking, or capable of thinking, about what he was doing. However, the fact that he committed the offence while highly intoxicated, probably with methamphetamine or one of its derivatives, cannot and does not excuse what he did. It cannot and does not mitigate the penalty. At best, it helps me understand how the offence came about and it put Wade’s behaviour…