R v Webb - [2025] NSWDC 112

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Webb [2025] NSWDC 112
Hearing dates: 7 February 2025
Date of orders: 7 February 2025
Decision date: 07 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 2 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Public order offences — Affray
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — Moral culpability— Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Depraved and disrupted childhood — Antisocial lifestyle

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
R v Eleter [2003] NSWDC 130
R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485
Usaia v R [2023] NSWCCA 57

Category: Sentence
Parties: Jamie Micheal Webb (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hart (for the offender)
C Triscari (for the Crown)
Solicitors:
Justine Hall Lawyer (for the accused)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/134935

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

When he was before the Local Court Jamie Webb said he would plead guilty to an offence of affray: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 93C(1). Because he pleaded guilty in the Local Court, I will reduce the otherwise appropriate sentence by 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of that plea.
He has spent time in custody solely in relation to this matter. He must be credited with all that time: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 24. The dates were discussed with the parties. The sentence will commence on 15 April 2024.
A custodial sentence of some length is required. Although Webb was initially provoked as he, along with others, was the victim of a robbery, his reaction to that robbery was excessive, unnecessary and involved gratuitous violence to the two people who committed the initial robbery.
Another person with Webb, Lawrence, went significantly further, he stabbed fatally one of the robbers. He has been dealt with for the crime of manslaughter: R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485 (Judge Fitzsimmons SC). Webb is not to be sentenced for that offence, while he was involved in the events that led to the death of Mr Brown, he played no role in any way in the death. But he did, in the course of the affray, assault both Williams and the deceased, Mr Brown.
The incident occurred on 24 April 2023 in the suburb of Wollongong. There are Agreed Facts before the Court.

Agreed Facts

In brief summary, at about 1pm Brown and Williams entered premises attempting to either extort or rob the occupants of money and / or drugs. A number of people were present. After the attempted robbery the offenders ran. Lawrence said to Webb, “Let’s go get these cunts”.
Lawrence had…

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 Webb

Details

AGLC: R v Webb [2025] NSWDC 112
Case: [2025] NSWDC 112
Decision Date: 07 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Webb, the defendant was convicted of affray and brought before the court for sentencing. The incident involved a physical altercation in a public place, which the prosecution argued constituted an affray. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Webb, considering various aggravating and mitigating factors. Among the aggravating factors were Webb's breach of a conditional liberty order and his history of previous convictions. The court also needed to consider the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence and moral culpability.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the objective seriousness of the offence, the need for parity with co-offenders, and the subjective considerations that might inform an appropriate sentence. The court had to weigh these factors, including Webb's drug addiction, his deprived and disrupted childhood, and his generally antisocial lifestyle. The prosecution argued for a substantial sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to deter future offending, while the defence sought a more lenient sentence, highlighting the mitigating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the need for a sentence that would serve both punitive and deterrent purposes. The court found that while Webb's background and personal circumstances were indeed serious, they did not outweigh the need to protect the community and uphold the law. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. This sentence was deemed appropriate to address the objectives of sentencing, while also taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Webb, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 1 year and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. This decision reflects the court's balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case, aiming to achieve justice for the community and the individual defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 2 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 Webb [2025] NSWDC 112
Hearing dates:	7 February 2025
Date of orders:	7 February 2025
Decision date:	07 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 2 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Public order offences — Affray SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Deterrence — Moral culpability— Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Depraved and disrupted childhood — Antisocial lifestyle
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 R v Eleter [2003] NSWDC 130 R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485 Usaia v R [2023] NSWCCA 57
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Jamie Micheal Webb (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: B Hart (for the offender) C Triscari (for the Crown) Solicitors: Justine Hall Lawyer (for the accused) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/134935