R v PINCHAM [2011] NSWDC 49

R v PINCHAM [2011] NSWDC 49

The offender's repeated break, enter and steal offences committed immediately after release and while on parole required a substantial custodial sentence, with accumulation to recognise the separate criminality of each offence. However, the earliest guilty plea, the application of totality, and the demonstrated benefit of compulsory drug treatment justified an effective non-parole period of three and a half years with a head sentence of five and a half years and referral back to the Drug Court for assessment to continue treatment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to an effective non-parole period of three and a half years with a head sentence of five and a half years and referred back to the Drug Court.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'form 1 Offences' 'drug Court Referral' 'compulsory Drug Treatment Order' 'parole' 'totality' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'form 1 Offences' 'drug Court Referral' 'compulsory Drug Treatment Order' 'parole' 'totality' '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 After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentences should be imposed for four break, enter and steal offences committed shortly after the offender's release from custody and while on parole." 'Whether two less serious matters on a Form 1 could be taken into account without a certificate under s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.' "Whether the sentence should take account of the offender's compulsory drug treatment order and eligibility to continue treatment." 'Whether special circumstances should be found to allow substantial support and supervision on parole.' 'How the principle of totality should apply given existing Local Court sentences and the separate criminality of each offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's repeated break, enter and steal offences committed immediately after release and while on parole required a substantial custodial sentence, with accumulation to recognise the separate criminality of each offence. However, the earliest guilty plea, the application of totality, and the demonstrated benefit of compulsory drug treatment justified an effective non-parole period of three and a half years with a head sentence of five and a half years and referral back to the Drug Court for assessment to continue treatment.

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to an effective non-parole period of three and a half years with a head sentence of five and a half years and referred back to the Drug Court.

Orders

  • ['For the offence committed on 21 March 2010, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of two years to date from 6 April 2011.' 'For the offence committed on 25 March 2010, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a fixed term to date from 6 October 2011.' 'For the offence committed on 27...