R v Pintley; R v Barber [2017] NSWDC 224

R v Pintley; R v Barber [2017] NSWDC 224

The offence was below the middle of the range of objective seriousness because it involved non-residential premises, but required custodial punishment. Mr Pintley's greater role, lengthy criminal history, offending while on parole and need for deterrence justified imprisonment, while his early guilty plea, disadvantaged background, drug addiction, rehabilitation prospects and special circumstances affected the non-parole period and supervision. Ms Barber's lesser history and role justified referral for assessment as to whether her custodial sentence could be served by means of an intensive corrections order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Barber referred for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Corrections Order; Pintley sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months and a head sentence of 2.5 years.
Legal Topics
['break Enter and Steal' 'drug Addiction' 'parole' 'intensive Corrections Order' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parity' 'objective Seriousness']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break Enter and Steal' 'drug Addiction' 'parole' 'intensive Corrections Order' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parity' 'objective Seriousness']

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 Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for the offenders' break, enter and steal offence." 'Whether Ms Barber should be assessed as suitable to serve her custodial sentence by means of an intensive corrections order.' "Whether Mr Pintley's sentence should reflect his offending while on parole, criminal history, disadvantaged background, drug addiction, prospects of rehabilitation, deterrence and special circumstances." 'How parity should be applied between co-offenders with different roles and personal circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was below the middle of the range of objective seriousness because it involved non-residential premises, but required custodial punishment. Mr Pintley's greater role, lengthy criminal history, offending while on parole and need for deterrence justified imprisonment, while his early guilty plea, disadvantaged background, drug addiction, rehabilitation prospects and special circumstances affected the non-parole period and supervision. Ms Barber's lesser history and role justified referral for assessment as to whether her custodial sentence could be served by means of an intensive corrections order.

Court Disposition

Barber referred for assessment as to suitability for an Intensive Corrections Order; Pintley sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months and a head sentence of 2.5 years.

Orders

  • ['Laura Zena Barber is referred for assessment as to her suitability to serve her sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order.' 'Damien William Pintley is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months commencing 30 September 2016 and a head sentence of two and a half years.' "Damien William...