R v Steele; R v Mahoney [2013] NSWDC 288

R v Steele; R v Mahoney [2013] NSWDC 288

Mahoney's break, enter and steal, prior criminality, and offending while on conditional liberty required a custodial sentence, but the offence was in the lower half of seriousness, most property was recovered, he pleaded guilty, had already spent sufficient time in custody, and needed parole supervision for drug and vocational issues; a 28 month sentence with a 14 month non-parole period and immediate release on parole was appropriate. Steele's lesser role as driver and accessory after the fact, early willingness to plead guilty, health and substance issues, and availability of suitable light community service meant full-time custody was not warranted and a 150 hour community service...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Mahoney and Steele were convicted on their guilty pleas. Mahoney was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period already served and ordered released on parole. Steele was sentenced to a community service order.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'accessory After the Fact to Break, Enter and Steal' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'non Parole Period' 'parole' 'community Service Order' 'substance Abuse' 'prior Criminality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'accessory After the Fact to Break, Enter and Steal' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'non Parole Period' 'parole' 'community Service Order' 'substance Abuse' 'prior Criminality']

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 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed on Mitchell Mahoney for break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'What sentence should be imposed on William Steele for accessory after the fact to break, enter and steal.' "Whether Mahoney's circumstances justified a custodial sentence with a reduced non-parole period and release on parole." "Whether Steele's circumstances and role justified a community service order rather than full-time custody."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mahoney's break, enter and steal, prior criminality, and offending while on conditional liberty required a custodial sentence, but the offence was in the lower half of seriousness, most property was recovered, he pleaded guilty, had already spent sufficient time in custody, and needed parole supervision for drug and vocational issues; a 28 month sentence with a 14 month non-parole period and immediate release on parole was appropriate. Steele's lesser role as driver and accessory after the fact, early willingness to plead guilty, health and substance issues, and availability of suitable light community service meant full-time custody was not warranted and a 150 hour community service...

Court Disposition

Mahoney and Steele were convicted on their guilty pleas. Mahoney was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period already served and ordered released on parole. Steele was sentenced to a community service order.

Orders

  • ['Mitchell Mahoney: non-parole period of 14 months commencing 31 March 2012 and expiring 30 May 2013.' 'Mitchell Mahoney: balance of term of 14 months commencing 31 May 2013 and expiring 30 July 2014.' 'Mitchell Mahoney: order under s 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act directing release on parole on 31 May...