R v White - [2021] NSWDC 272

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v White
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2021] NSWDC 272
Hearing Date(s):	26 May 2021
Decision Date:	1 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. Non parole period of 1 year 2 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Detain for advantage in company SENTENCE – factual dispute – judge left to determine voice identification issues from audio recording
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Johnson v R [2010] NSWCCA 124 Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270 Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222. Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Joshua White (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr A Ly, Ly Lawyers (for the offender) Mr R Taylor (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2020/00190640
Publication Restriction:	Suppression order until resolution of trial of co-offenders Suppression order: I make a temporary suppression order of these proceedings. There is to be no publication that Mr White entered a plea of guilty and the facts in relation to it, until the determination of the matters of Andrew Jason Nicholls (2020/00190489) and Anthony Rutherford (2020/00191892) by plea or verdict

SENTENCE

Introduction

Joshua White was friends with AJ Nicholls and both Nicholls’ wife and his girlfriend, the complainant in this matter. In June 2020 White formed a view that Nicholls’ girlfriend had leaked information about him relating to his relationship with his partner.
At about 10PM on 26 June 2020 Nicholls phoned the complainant and asked her to come to his workshop in Unanderra so they could “talk.” She arrived about 11PM. Three men were present when she arrived - White, Nicholls and Rutherford.
Immediately on arriving she engaged with the men in a heated verbal argument about what the complainant had “leaked”. The situation escalated. She was detained and threatened by all three men. For a short period she was tied to a chair. She was assaulted. Her life was threatened and a knife was produced to her. She was however allowed to leave but not after what it is accepted was a short but terrifying ordeal.
The victim complained to police the next morning. White was arrested on 27 June 2020 after he attended Lake Illawarra Police Station of his own volition. In the Local Court he accepted his guilt to a s 86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 offence. He adhered to that plea in the District Court on 27 May 2021.
What occurred at Nicholls’ workshop was video and audio recorded by a security…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2021] NSWDC 272
Case: [2021] NSWDC 272
Decision Date: 1 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved the defendant, White, who was found guilty of detaining a person for an advantage in the company. The dispute was heard and determined by the court. The legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the identification of the voice in an audio recording which was crucial in establishing the defendant's involvement in the crime. The accuracy of the voice identification was contested, and it fell upon the judge to assess the credibility of the audio evidence presented.

In assessing the evidence, the court acknowledged the complexity of voice identification and the potential for human error in such assessments. The judge carefully considered the audio recording, the context in which it was made, and the expert opinions provided. The judge concluded that, despite the challenges in voice identification, the evidence was sufficient to determine that the voice in the recording matched that of the defendant. This finding was pivotal in resolving the factual dispute and confirming the defendant's role in the crime.

The court, having determined the factual issues in favour of the prosecution, proceeded to impose a sentence. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for both punishment and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months. 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.