R v Tighe [2019] NSWDC 230

R v Tighe [2019] NSWDC 230

The offences were each of low objective seriousness and were unsophisticated, but involved repeated offending against different victims over a short period while the offender was on parole and with a lengthy criminal history. The offender's early deprivation, trauma, institutionalisation and longstanding drug addiction reduced moral culpability, his pleas warranted a 25% discount, and his substantial treatment needs constituted special circumstances. An aggregate sentence with partial accumulation was appropriate, commencing three months after arrest because parole had been revoked partly for the further offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Pleas of Guilty in the Local Court
Outcome
Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of three years six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'entering a Building With Intent to Steal' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Pleas' 'parole Breach' 'social Disadvantage' 'drug Abuse' 'institutionalisation' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'entering a Building With Intent to Steal' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Pleas' 'parole Breach' 'social Disadvantage' 'drug Abuse' 'institutionalisation' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Pleas of Guilty in the Local Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Assessment of the objective seriousness of multiple break, enter and steal and related offences' 'Whether offences on a Form 1 should increase the sentence for the principal offence' 'Effect of offending while on parole' 'Whether childhood deprivation and social disadvantage enlivened the principles in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37' 'Whether drug abuse mitigated the offending in the sense considered in the Henry guideline judgment' 'Whether special circumstances justified reducing the non-parole period from the statutory ratio' 'Commencement date for the aggregate sentence after parole revocation']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were each of low objective seriousness and were unsophisticated, but involved repeated offending against different victims over a short period while the offender was on parole and with a lengthy criminal history. The offender's early deprivation, trauma, institutionalisation and longstanding drug addiction reduced moral culpability, his pleas warranted a 25% discount, and his substantial treatment needs constituted special circumstances. An aggregate sentence with partial accumulation was appropriate, commencing three months after arrest because parole had been revoked partly for the further offences.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence of three years six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['The offender was sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment dating from 15 April 2018 and expiring on 14 October 2019.' 'An additional term of two years imprisonment was imposed.' 'The aggregate sentence was three years six months imprisonment.']