Regina v Loretta Stubbs - [2009] NSWDC 225

CITATION: Regina v Loretta Stubbs [2009] NSWDC 225

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 April 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: Non-parole period of 13 months. Balance of term of 11 months.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - doing an act with intent to influence a witness - plea of guilty - offence committed while on s 9 bond - objectively serious offence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 9, s 11, s 44, s 50
Crimes Act 1900 s 323(a)

CASES CITED: R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128

PARTIES: Regina
Loretta Stubbs

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/17547001

COUNSEL: Mr McCallum (def)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions

JUDGMENT

1. Loretta Stubbs came before me for sentence on 6 February 2009 at Dubbo. On that day I adjourned her sentence proceedings to 20 March 2009. I made that adjournment under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. I had found her guilty of an offence and I granted her bail under the Bail Act 1978. Conditions of bail included her entering into a drug rehabilitation centre.

2. Regrettably Ms Stubbs breached her bail and is now to be sentenced by me. I heard submissions from Mr McCallum who appeared for Ms Stubbs and from Ms White who appeared for the prosecution on 20 March 2009 about the sentence which I should impose.

3. The offence that I am sentencing Ms Stubbs for is doing an act with intent to influence a witness. That is a crime against s 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment. Ms Stubbs pleaded guilty to that charge. It is important to briefly refer to the circumstances in which she committed that offence.

4. She was in a domestic relationship with a man named Robert Norford. On 28 October 2007 Ms Stubbs was arrested and charged with recklessly wounding Robert Norford. The charge was set down for hearing at the Dubbo Local Court but Mr Norford failed to attend and the trial of the charge was adjourned to another date. In the meantime Ms Stubbs found herself back in custody on remand. The offence which I am sentencing her for occurred when she was in custody.

5. She made two telephone calls on 1 May 2008 from custody to a woman who is Robert Norford’s mother. During those telephone calls she urged Robert Norford’s mother to persuade him not to come to court to give evidence against her on the charge of recklessly wounding him. I have been given a transcript of the telephone calls which were recorded by Corrective Services officers in accordance with the usual procedure. For example at one stage she said, “Just tell him, say that to stay hidden”. On another occasion in the same conversation she asked Mr Norford’s mother to tell him to “stay well hidden, so they can’t fucking find him”. She was aware that the date for the hearing of the charge…

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 Loretta Stubbs

Details

AGLC: Regina v Loretta Stubbs [2009] NSWDC 225
Case: [2009] NSWDC 225
Decision Date: 3 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Loretta Stubbs was charged with the offence of doing an act with intent to influence a witness. The case was heard in the relevant court where she entered a plea of guilty. The offence was committed while she was on a bond under section 9 of the relevant legislation. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this offence, taking into account its seriousness and the mitigating and aggravating factors. The defence argued for a sentence that would provide a fair reflection of the crime's gravity while also considering the offender's circumstances. The prosecution highlighted the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court considered various aspects of the offence, including the intent behind the act and its potential impact on the witness. The sentencing principles relevant to the case included the need to deter similar conduct, the offender's culpability, and the impact on the community. The court also took into account the offender's background, including her history of offending and any mitigating factors such as remorse. In its sentencing decision, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system by ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and reflected its seriousness.

The court ultimately determined that the offence was of a high level of seriousness, warranting a significant custodial sentence. The non-parole period was set at 13 months, with the balance of the term set at 11 months. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. The court's judgment provides guidance on the approach to sentencing for similar offences, particularly those involving witness interference while on bond.

Orders

Orders of the court

Non-parole period of 13 months. Balance of term of 11 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.

CITATION:	Regina v Loretta Stubbs [2009] NSWDC 225
JUDGMENT DATE:	3 April 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION:	Non-parole period of 13 months. Balance of term of 11 months.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - doing an act with intent to influence a witness - plea of guilty - offence committed while on s 9 bond - objectively serious offence
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 9, s 11, s 44, s 50 Crimes Act 1900 s 323(a)
CASES CITED:	R v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128
PARTIES:	Regina Loretta Stubbs
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/17547001
COUNSEL:	Mr McCallum (def)
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions