R v Prouting-Smith [2020] NSWDC 644

R v Prouting-Smith [2020] NSWDC 644

Although the two s 112(1)(a) offences were below mid-range in objective seriousness, they were serious, involved gratuitous disturbance or damage, and were aggravated because they were committed while the offender was on parole. The offender's prior criminal history meant he was not entitled to leniency, and the s 5 imprisonment threshold was crossed. However, the offences formed one course of criminal conduct warranting a high degree of concurrency, the offender had strong mitigating subjective circumstances, had pleaded guilty early, had spent time in custody and quasi-custody, had made significant rehabilitative progress, and was assessed as a medium-low risk of reoffending. Community...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'form 1 Offences' 'intensive Correction Order' 'parole Breach' 'drug Rehabilitation' 'objective Seriousness' 'totality' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'form 1 Offences' 'intensive Correction Order' 'parole Breach' 'drug Rehabilitation' 'objective Seriousness' 'totality' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 Sentence / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two offences of break, enter and commit serious indictable offence under s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, with three Form 1 matters taken into account.' 'Whether the offending, committed while the offender was on parole, crossed the imprisonment threshold under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order having regard to community safety, rehabilitation, time in custody and time in quasi-custody.' 'How totality and concurrency should apply where the two index offences formed one course of criminal conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the two s 112(1)(a) offences were below mid-range in objective seriousness, they were serious, involved gratuitous disturbance or damage, and were aggravated because they were committed while the offender was on parole. The offender's prior criminal history meant he was not entitled to leniency, and the s 5 imprisonment threshold was crossed. However, the offences formed one course of criminal conduct warranting a high degree of concurrency, the offender had strong mitigating subjective circumstances, had pleaded guilty early, had spent time in custody and quasi-custody, had made significant rehabilitative progress, and was assessed as a medium-low risk of reoffending. Community...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of Sequence 1, an offence pursuant to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'The offender is convicted of Sequence 3, an offence pursuant to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.' 'Pursuant to s 7(1)...