R v DUNBAR [2010] NSWDC 94

R v DUNBAR [2010] NSWDC 94

Although the offence was aggravated because it was committed in company and while the offender was on parole, it was significantly below the middle of the range of objective seriousness because the aggravation was limited and the offender's conduct was influenced by his inability to obtain methadone after several days. The standard non-parole period remained an important guidepost, but special circumstances relating to rehabilitation justified the sentence imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2010
Procedural Posture
District Court Criminal Sentence for Break, Enter and Steal in Company / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal in Company' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Dependence and Methadone' 'special Circumstances' 'form One Offence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal in Company' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Dependence and Methadone' 'special Circumstances' 'form One Offence']

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

District Court Criminal Sentence for Break, Enter and Steal in Company / Sentencing After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for break, enter and steal in company where the offender committed the offence while on parole and while deprived of methadone.' 'Whether the offence fell within the middle of the range of objective seriousness for an offence carrying a standard non-parole period of five years.' 'Whether special circumstances existed in relation to parole and rehabilitation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offence was aggravated because it was committed in company and while the offender was on parole, it was significantly below the middle of the range of objective seriousness because the aggravation was limited and the offender's conduct was influenced by his inability to obtain methadone after several days. The standard non-parole period remained an important guidepost, but special circumstances relating to rehabilitation justified the sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.

Orders

  • ['The offender is sentenced to imprisonment.' 'Non-parole period of two years to date from 8 September 2009; the offender is eligible to be released to parole on 7 September 2011.' 'Head sentence of four years.' 'The cannabis, the subject of the Form One, is destroyed.']