The Queen v Green

Case [2020] NSWDC 666


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Queen v Green [2020] NSWDC 666
Hearing dates: 16 September 2020; 14 September 2020; 26 August 2020; 20 August 2020; 7 August 2020
Date of orders: 16 September 2020
Decision date: 16 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence. Decision at [104] – [122]

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentence – multiple offences – lengthy history – strong subjective case – balance of parole to serve – prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 33B, 51B, 154

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW ss 3A, 10A, 21, 47

Road Transport Act 2013 NSW s 51

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27

Texts Cited:

None

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Nathan Green (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Murray (ODPP)
Mr Ayache (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/202449
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. Nathan Green, hereafter referred to as ‘the Offender’, appears before the Court today for sentence in relation to a number of charges set out on the Crown Sentence Summary, marked Exhibit A. The first charge is take and drive a conveyance, being sequence 4 of charge number ending 475, and in breach of s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, that offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

  2. The second charge is use an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, being sequence 6 of the same charge number, and in breach of s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. That charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 years imprisonment.

  3. The third charge is engage in a police pursuit (first offence). That is sequence 7 of the same charge number, and in breach of s 51B(1) of the Crimes Act. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment, together with a disqualification of licence.

  4. There is a related matter on a s 166 Certificate which the Offender has asked me to sentence, being driving whilst disqualified, second or more offence. That is sequence 5 of the same charge number, in breach of s 54(1) of the Road Transport Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 12 months imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units. It also carries a disqualification period.

  5. Finally, there’s a charge on a Form 1, which has been signed by the Offender, and which he wishes me to have regard in relation to sentencing him in respect of Count 2, being sequence 6. That is sequence 8, use offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, in breach of the same section aforementioned, and carrying a maximum penalty of 12 years imprisonment.

  6. The maximum penalties in respect of each of the offences are guideposts to a sentencing Judge, and represent the seriousness with which the community, through parliament, views this offending.

  7. The Offender was born on 9 January 1980 and is now 40 years of age. I have signed the certificate to the Form 1, confirming that the charge will be taken…

Continue reading The Queen v Green

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Green [2020] NSWDC 666
Case
[2020] NSWDC 666
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Green involved the sentencing of an individual with a significant criminal history, Green, who had been convicted of multiple offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the severity of the crimes committed with the prospects for rehabilitation and the potential for parole.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Green, who had a lengthy criminal record and had committed serious offences. The court needed to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Green’s history of offending, the nature of the current crimes, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for parole.

The court thoroughly examined Green's criminal history, the circumstances of the current offences, and the submissions made regarding his prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that Green had a substantial history of offending, which indicated a pattern of behaviour that had not been successfully addressed. Despite this, the court also considered the possibility of rehabilitation and the potential for Green to serve a portion of his sentence under parole. The court concluded that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary but also weighed the balance of parole to ensure that Green would serve an appropriate amount of time before being considered for parole. The decision was detailed in the court's judgment from [104] to [122].

The court ultimately ordered a full-time custodial sentence for Green, with specific considerations given to the balance of parole to ensure he would serve a significant portion of the sentence before being eligible for parole. This decision was aimed at achieving a balance between punishment and rehabilitation, taking into account Green's criminal history and the nature of the current offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. Decision at [104] – [122]

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.