R v James [2021] NSWDC 746
The offence was towards the mid-range of objective seriousness and was aggravated by being committed in the victims' home, the offender's prior convictions, and substantial emotional harm, but the offender did not know in advance that Brown had a baton, did not speak to the victims, and the offending was impulsive, unsophisticated and short. Taking into account the Form 1 matter, the 10% guilty plea discount, custody and quasi custody already served, parity with Lucky Anthony, reduced moral culpability from disadvantage, and the offender's reasonable rehabilitation prospects and lack of present community safety risk, a sentence of 18 months imprisonment served by intensive correction...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 August 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
- Outcome
- The offender was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order; for the possess prohibited drug matter on the s 166 certificate, he was convicted with no further penalty.
- Legal Topics
- ['aggravated Break and Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'intimidation in Company' 'form 1 Offences' 'intensive Correction Orders' 'aggravating Factors' 'mitigating Factors' 'aboriginal Offenders' 'drug Addiction' 'mental Illness' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'parity With Co Offenders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, namely intimidation in company, contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'How the Form 1 offence of intimidation should be taken into account on sentence.' "Whether aggravating factors, including offending in the victims' home, prior convictions and substantial emotional harm, affected the objective seriousness of the offending." 'How mitigating and subjective factors, including the guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitation prospects, Aboriginal background, mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues, time in custody and quasi custody, affected sentence.' 'Whether parity with co-offender Lucky Anthony affected the sentence.' 'Whether the term of imprisonment should be served by way of an intensive correction order.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offence was towards the mid-range of objective seriousness and was aggravated by being committed in the victims' home, the offender's prior convictions, and substantial emotional harm, but the offender did not know in advance that Brown had a baton, did not speak to the victims, and the offending was impulsive, unsophisticated and short. Taking into account the Form 1 matter, the 10% guilty plea discount, custody and quasi custody already served, parity with Lucky Anthony, reduced moral culpability from disadvantage, and the offender's reasonable rehabilitation prospects and lack of present community safety risk, a sentence of 18 months imprisonment served by intensive correction...
Court Disposition
The offender was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order; for the possess prohibited drug matter on the s 166 certificate, he was convicted with no further penalty.
Orders
- ['The offender is convicted of the principal offence.' 'Taking into account the Form 1 matter and the 10% discount for the plea of guilty, a sentence of imprisonment of 18 months is imposed.' 'Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence is to be served by way of an intensive...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment