Troy Douglas Pleace v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 112

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Troy Douglas Pleace v R [2017] NSWCCA 112
Hearing dates: 28 April 2017
Date of orders: 31 May 2017
Decision date: 31 May 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Hamill J at [3]
Decision:
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – enter with intent to commit offence of intimidation – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – assault with crow bar in victim’s home – whether sentence manifestly excessive – where applicant suffering severe psychiatric condition – schizophrenia -– relevance of statistics and outcomes in other cases – sentence high but not plainly wrong or unjust
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Dyer v R [2011] NSWCCA 185
Kennedy v R [2013] NSWCCA 19
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; 118 A Crim R 66
R v Mitropoulos [2004] NSWCCA 402
R v Togher [2012] NSWDC 276
Sabongi v R [2015] NSWCCA 25
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Troy Douglas Pleace - Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Stares -Applicant
Mr S Hughes – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2014/69677
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

29/01/2016 and 01/04/2016

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/69677

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL

I agree with Hamill J and the orders which he proposes.

FULLERTON J

I agree with Hamill J.

HAMILL J

Troy Douglas Pleace (“the applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence imposed on him by Judge Berman SC in the District Court on 1 April 2016. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The applicant pleaded guilty to entering a dwelling house with intent to commit the serious indictable offence of intimidation (“enter with intent”). This is an offence contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 59(1) of the Crimes Act, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years. Initially, it was understood that the applicant would ask that an offence of common assault be taken into account on sentencing and there is a Form 1 within the appeal papers. However, the applicant denied committing this offence when asked about it by the sentencing judge and his Honour said that it was not taken into account.
The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The aggregate head sentence was five years and the aggregate non-parole period was 3…

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 Troy Douglas Pleace v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Troy Douglas Pleace v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 112
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 112
Decision Date: 31 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicant, Troy Douglas Pleace, appealed against his sentence for entering a dwelling with the intent to commit the offence of intimidation, which led to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The incident involved the use of a crow bar in the victim's home. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland. Pleace was sentenced to imprisonment and was represented by counsel who argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the applicant's severe psychiatric condition, specifically schizophrenia. The defence also raised the issue of the relevance of statistics and outcomes from other cases in determining the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the applicant, and the principles of sentencing. The court had to evaluate the relevance of Pleace's psychiatric condition and the broader context of similar cases. The primary focus was on whether the sentence was plainly wrong or unjust.

The court found that while the sentence was high, it was not manifestly excessive. It noted the seriousness of the offence and the need to consider deterrence and denunciation. The court also recognised Pleace's psychiatric condition but found that it did not warrant a reduction in the sentence to the extent argued by the defence. The statistics and outcomes from other cases were considered, but the court determined that they did not significantly alter the overall assessment of the sentence. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders