Regina v Bradley Grant Hunter

[2006] NSWDC 23

CITATION:	Regina v Bradley Grant Hunter [2006] NSWDC 23
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 May 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Finnane QC DCJ
DECISION:	I impose upon him a sentence of full-time imprisonment of two years with a non parole period of 12 months. I impose that non-parole period, because I consider that there are special circumstances in this case. The non-parole period will commence on 26th May 2006 and will conclude on 25th May 2007. The balance of the sentence will commence on 26th May 2007 and will conclude on 25th May 2008. The offender is to be released to parole at the expiry of the non parole period; I recommend that he be given early classification to a minimum-security classification and if possible, the benefit of a young offenders programme. I also recommend that he be given counselling about relationships and anger and psychological assistance if deemed necessary by the Department of Corrective Services.
CATCHWORDS:	sentence - break and enter - intimidation of victim - stalking victim - breach ADVO - damage to property - offender's obsessive behaviour towards victim - psychological issues - adjustment disorder - obsessive compulsive disorder - depression - limited sentencing options due to offender's residence -
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	Regina v Elmir and Salami [2003] NSWCCA 192 Regina v Joel Tory and Luke Tory [2006] NSWCCA 18
PARTIES:	Regina Bradley Grant Hunter
FILE NUMBER(S):	05/11/1082
SOLICITORS:	Ms Thompson (NSW DPP) Mr Marshall (Offender)

- 1 -

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction.

1 A young man appears before me today for sentence. The crime with which he is charged is a very serious one, carrying a standard non-parole period of five years if I were to hold that it were an offence within the mid range of seriousness. It arises out of a broken love relationship, but also concerns obsessive behaviour on the part of the offender, which led to his persecuting the complainant for a period of almost a year.

2 The complainant, who was a young woman, for some months, had an intimate relationship with the offender. She terminated it because of his obsessive behaviour. He could not accept this. Notwithstanding court orders, he continued to pursue her, even though she asserted her entitlement to live separately from him. At no time did he give any consideration to her feelings or her entitlement to live her own life. He decided that she had no such entitlement, and that he had a continuing right to control her life.

3 Unfortunately, there are many in our community, particularly men, who believe that they have the right to control the lives of women, and that the women have no entitlement to refuse to have anything to do with them. Apprehended violence orders are made and ignored, until eventually, some quite serious crime brings the offender before the court. That is what happened here.

4 The offender, like many others who ignore apprehended violence orders, is a man of good character. He…