R v Sean Luke TIBBEY [2009] NSWDC 146

R v Sean Luke TIBBEY [2009] NSWDC 146

The offences were serious aggravated break enter and steal offences carrying a standard non-parole period and were committed by an offender who had breached a s 11 remand. Although the offender's youth, ADHD, difficult upbringing, guilty pleas and rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence and reduced the role of general deterrence, personal deterrence required full-time imprisonment rather than a s 12 remand or home detention. Concurrent sentences with a non-parole period of six months and head sentences of eighteen months were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Pleas and Breach of S 11 Remand
Outcome
On each offence the offender was sentenced to imprisonment, with concurrent head sentences of eighteen months and a non-parole period of six months commencing 6 April 2009 and expiring 5 October 2009.
Legal Topics
['break Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'breach of S 11 Remand' 'adhd' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parole Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break Enter and Steal' 'aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'breach of S 11 Remand' 'adhd' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parole Conditions']

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 Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Pleas and Breach of S 11 Remand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for two offences of break enter and steal committed just after the offender's eighteenth birthday." 'Whether the offender should receive a s 12 remand or home detention rather than full-time imprisonment.' "How the offender's ADHD, youth, guilty pleas, prior custody, rehabilitation prospects and breach of s 11 remand should affect sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious aggravated break enter and steal offences carrying a standard non-parole period and were committed by an offender who had breached a s 11 remand. Although the offender's youth, ADHD, difficult upbringing, guilty pleas and rehabilitation prospects mitigated sentence and reduced the role of general deterrence, personal deterrence required full-time imprisonment rather than a s 12 remand or home detention. Concurrent sentences with a non-parole period of six months and head sentences of eighteen months were warranted.

Court Disposition

On each offence the offender was sentenced to imprisonment, with concurrent head sentences of eighteen months and a non-parole period of six months commencing 6 April 2009 and expiring 5 October 2009.

Orders

  • ['On each offence, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.' 'The non-parole period is six months, commencing on 6 April 2009 and expiring on 5 October 2009.' 'The head sentence on each offence is eighteen months.' 'The total sentence expires on 5 October 2010.' 'It is a condition of release to parole that the...