R v Jessop; R v Woodford [2011] NSWDC 269

R v Jessop; R v Woodford [2011] NSWDC 269

Sentences of imprisonment were required. Woodford's count 1A offending was in the middle of the range of objective seriousness because he instigated a premeditated armed home invasion while on a current bond and sought to instil fear in the victim; Jessop's criminality on count 1A was somewhat below the middle of the range because he was not armed, did not instigate the offence and was not shown to have participated in planning. For counts 2 and 3, both offenders were responsible as participants in the joint criminal enterprise, but the offences fell towards the bottom, though not at the bottom, of the range. The guilty pleas, remorse, subjective features, prospects of rehabilitation and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Both offenders were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Jessop received an effective total term of three years with a non-parole period of fifteen months. Woodford's s 12 bond was revoked and he received an effective sentence described by the Court as four years imprisonment with two years non-parole.
Legal Topics
['break Into Home While Armed and in Company' 'intimidation' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in Company' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'remorse' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'revocation of S 12 Bond']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break Into Home While Armed and in Company' 'intimidation' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in Company' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'remorse' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'revocation of S 12 Bond']

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 Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed for count 1A, break into a home while armed and in company and intimidating Jessie Franks.' 'What sentences should be imposed for counts 2 and 3, assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company upon Craig Flanagan and Corey Murphy.' 'Whether the standard non-parole period should be imposed for count 1A.' 'Whether special circumstances justified extended supervision on parole.' "Whether Aaron Woodford's s 12 bond should be revoked."]

Ratio Decidendi

Sentences of imprisonment were required. Woodford's count 1A offending was in the middle of the range of objective seriousness because he instigated a premeditated armed home invasion while on a current bond and sought to instil fear in the victim; Jessop's criminality on count 1A was somewhat below the middle of the range because he was not armed, did not instigate the offence and was not shown to have participated in planning. For counts 2 and 3, both offenders were responsible as participants in the joint criminal enterprise, but the offences fell towards the bottom, though not at the bottom, of the range. The guilty pleas, remorse, subjective features, prospects of rehabilitation and...

Court Disposition

Both offenders were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Jessop received an effective total term of three years with a non-parole period of fifteen months. Woodford's s 12 bond was revoked and he received an effective sentence described by the Court as four years imprisonment with two years non-parole.

Orders

  • ['Paul Jessop was convicted of counts 1A, 2 and 3 and sentenced to imprisonment.' 'For Paul Jessop on count 1A, the Court fixed a non-parole period of fifteen months and a total term of three years to commence on 3 February 2010.' 'Paul Jessop was ordered to be released to parole on 2 May 2011, subject to...