Regina v John Dechellis - [2002] NSWCCA 88

CITATION: Regina v John Dechellis [2002] NSWCCA 88 revised - 20/03/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60481/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
John Dechellis

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 10; Buddin J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/71/0035

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Williams DCJ

COUNSEL : LMB Lamprati (Crown)
Applicant in person

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation - discount for plea of guilty - "special circumstances" - sentence not manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION: Application for extension of time granted. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

60481/2001

GREG JAMES J
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 19 MARCH 2002

REGINA V JOHN DECHELLIS

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court. The applicant originally pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge brought pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act which alleged an offence of break and enter a dwelling place and whilst there committing a serious indictable offence, namely malicious damage in circumstances of aggravation which in this case was that the act was done knowing that there were persons present within the said dwelling.

2 The applicant adhered to that plea in the District Court and was sentenced by Judge Williams on 20 June 2001 to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years to date from 4 February 2001. An identical sentence was imposed upon a co-offender, Gavin John Henness. The maximum penalty for the offence is twenty years’ imprisonment.

3 An agreed statement of facts was tendered during the sentence proceedings. Its contents are set out below:

At about 2 am on the morning of Saturday 3rd February 2001 the victims, Tony Browning, his defacto wife Danielle Young and their 2 children were asleep in their home at 7 Sale Street Grenfell. Danielle Young’s 14 year old niece, Elis Young, who lives with them was also asleep in her bedroom down the hall. The little children were aged 16 months and 2 years of age and they were asleep on a mattress on the living room floor.

Danielle Young recalls making sure that the front door was shut before going to bed and Troy recalled locking the front screen door. The three windows in the lounge room all had fly screens on them. Danielle Young recalled that the middle window was closed but thought that the others may have been open.

They were awoken by banging on the front screen door. Troy Browning heard a male voice shouting “fucking get outside”. Troy Browning went from the bedroom to the lounge room as he approached the lounge room he saw one of the front windows smash and glass spray into the lounge room. He then saw the second and third…

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 Regina v John Dechellis

Details

AGLC: Regina v John Dechellis [2002] NSWCCA 88
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 88
Decision Date: 19 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of Regina v Dechellis involved the defendant, John Dechellis, who was charged with breaking and entering a property and committing a serious indictable offence under aggravating circumstances. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charges, leading to the court's consideration of an appropriate sentence. The legal issues before the court included determining the discount to be applied for the defendant's plea of guilty, as well as whether any special circumstances existed that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court also had to ensure that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The court acknowledged that the defendant's plea of guilty was a mitigating factor, which warranted a discount in the sentence. However, the court also considered the aggravating circumstances of the offence, including the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's criminal history. The court found that the defendant's prior convictions and the level of violence involved in the offence warranted a higher starting point for sentencing. The court also considered whether any special circumstances existed that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles. However, the court found that there were no such special circumstances present in this case. The court ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all of the relevant factors.

The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years. The court considered the defendant's plea of guilty and the mitigating factors present in the case, but also took into account the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the defendant and others from committing similar crimes. The court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.

Orders