R v Dillon; R v Rivera [2019] NSWSC 1750

R v Dillon; R v Rivera [2019] NSWSC 1750

Both offenders' participation in a public street brawl constituted a relatively serious affray requiring denunciation and general deterrence. Dillon's greater culpability as ring leader, his stomping on the victim's head, subsequent violent record and guarded rehabilitation prospects warranted a longer sentence, mitigated by youth, remorse, onerous consequences and extra-curial punishment. Rivera's strong subjective case, remorse, rehabilitation, early plea, time on remand and lesser role justified a much shorter backdated custodial sentence, but the seriousness of the public violence meant no non-custodial order or s 10A disposition was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Affray / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Joshua Dillon and James Rivera were convicted of affray and sentenced to imprisonment; Dillon was eligible for parole and directed to report to Community Corrections.
Legal Topics
['affray' 'objective Seriousness' 'public Order' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'parity' 'parole' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['affray' 'objective Seriousness' 'public Order' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'parity' 'parole' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing for Affray / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed on Joshua Dillon and James Rivera for affray under s 93C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' "How the objective seriousness of each offender's participation in the affray should be assessed." 'Whether extra-curial punishment arising from reprisals, including the murder of Brayden Dillon, should mitigate sentence.' 'How parity with co-offenders, including JTR dealt with in the Childrens Court, should affect sentence.' 'Whether imprisonment, rather than a non-custodial order, was appropriate for each offender.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both offenders' participation in a public street brawl constituted a relatively serious affray requiring denunciation and general deterrence. Dillon's greater culpability as ring leader, his stomping on the victim's head, subsequent violent record and guarded rehabilitation prospects warranted a longer sentence, mitigated by youth, remorse, onerous consequences and extra-curial punishment. Rivera's strong subjective case, remorse, rehabilitation, early plea, time on remand and lesser role justified a much shorter backdated custodial sentence, but the seriousness of the public violence meant no non-custodial order or s 10A disposition was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Joshua Dillon and James Rivera were convicted of affray and sentenced to imprisonment; Dillon was eligible for parole and directed to report to Community Corrections.

Orders

  • ['Joshua Dillon you are convicted of affray occurring on 18 July 2016. For this offence I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 3 years duration, having a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing on 30 October 2017 and expiring on 29 October 2019, with an additional term of 1 year commencing on 30 October 2019...