R v BRADY [2011] NSWDC 235

R v BRADY [2011] NSWDC 235

The offender's offences were numerous, planned and organised aggravated break, enter and steal offences committed in company over about eight months and involving substantial losses approaching a quarter of a million dollars, so the objective seriousness of the offending required a significant period of full-time imprisonment. His youth, traumatic background, vulnerability to older offenders, remorse, rehabilitation, lesser role and parity considerations warranted moderation, a guilty plea discount of about ten per cent, and a finding of special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole ratio, but they did not justify a suspended sentence or any non-custodial outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years and a period of eligibility for parole of 2 years.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'stealing' 'in Company' 'form 1 Offences' 'parity' 'rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'stealing' 'in Company' 'form 1 Offences' 'parity' 'rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed for five offences of aggravated break enter and commit serious indictable offence, namely stealing, in company.' 'What weight should be given to Form 1 matters when sentencing for count 3.' "Whether the offender's youth, traumatic family history, vulnerability, remorse and rehabilitation justified leniency." 'Whether parity with co-offenders Kostovski and Nikolovski affected the sentence.' 'Whether any alternative to full-time custody, including a suspended sentence, was available.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's offences were numerous, planned and organised aggravated break, enter and steal offences committed in company over about eight months and involving substantial losses approaching a quarter of a million dollars, so the objective seriousness of the offending required a significant period of full-time imprisonment. His youth, traumatic background, vulnerability to older offenders, remorse, rehabilitation, lesser role and parity considerations warranted moderation, a guilty plea discount of about ten per cent, and a finding of special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole ratio, but they did not justify a suspended sentence or any non-custodial outcome.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years and a period of eligibility for parole of 2 years.

Orders

  • ['For counts 1 and 2, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year four months and a head sentence of two years eight months to date from 3 November 2011.' 'For counts 4 and 5, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year four months and a head...