District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilson (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 174 Hearing dates: 6 May 2021 Date of orders: 6 May 2021 Decision date: 06 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 90
Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – use of offensive weapon to intimidate – threat to damage property – unauthorised firearm possession – whether Bugmy principles engaged
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act1900 (NSW) ss 33B, 199
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A
Firearms Act1996 (NSW) ss 3, 7
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Filippou v R (2015) 256 CLR 47
RvMostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
RvNajem [2008] NSWCCA 32
R v Perez (unrep, 11/12/91, NSWCCA)
R v Wilson (No.2) [2020] NSWDC 549
Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10
Thurgar v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 109
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460
Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Mr B Wilson (offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Solicitor Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Mr W Buxtom for the offender
LegalAid for the offender
File Number(s): 2019/00248475 Publication restriction: Nil.
EX TEMPORE SENTENCING REMARKS
Introduction
-
On 14 September 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to the two counts on an indictment that on 1 August 2019 at Thornton:
Count 1: he used an offensive weapon with intent to commit intimidation, contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) (the ‘Weapon Use’ offence);
Count 3: without lawful excuse, he made a threat to Clayton Futcher to damage property belonging to Mrs Deborah Jeffress, with the intention of causing Clayton Futcher to fear that the threat would be carried out, contrary to s 199(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the ‘Property Damage threat’ offence).
-
That same day, he pleaded not guilty to count 2, being that on 1 August 2019 at Thornton he possessed a firearm, namely a pistol, not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit, contrary to s 7A(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (the ‘Firearm offence).
-
For this charge, he was tried by me, sitting alone. It was agreed, as between the Crown and the offender, that in trying him for the Firearm Charge, the Court would hear evidence that related to the Property Damage threat offence and Weapon Use offence. Broadly speaking, this featured the use of a jerry can, and spilling of petrol, in or near the vicinity of the timber front door at the property where the offending conduct occurred. In this way, disputed facts relevant to sentencing could be determined at the same time as the adjudication of the question of the offender’s guilt in relation to Count 2.
-
On 18 September 2020, I found that the offender was also guilty of the Firearm Offence
Continue reading R v Wilson (No.3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Wilson (No.3) [2021] NSWDC 174
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 174
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the mitigating factors relevant to Wilson's background, including his Indigenous heritage, family history, and personal circumstances. The prosecution argued that the use of an offensive weapon and the threat to damage property were serious offences that warranted a substantial custodial sentence. The defence submitted that the Bugmy principles should be applied, and that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate given Wilson's background and the potential for rehabilitation.
The court determined that the Bugmy principles did apply to the sentencing of Wilson. The court found that Wilson's Indigenous background and personal circumstances were significant factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. Ultimately, the court decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate in this case, taking into account the mitigating factors and the potential for rehabilitation. The court ordered that Wilson be placed on a three-year good behaviour bond, with certain conditions, and that he participate in a rehabilitation program.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 90
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.