R v DJD [2023] NSWSC 1049
The offender was to be dealt with according to law because the indictable offence was serious, involved a violent home invasion at night by five masked males, and the offender was 17 at the time, had prior serious offending and was on parole. The offending was at the lower end of the mid-range of seriousness. The offender's schizophrenia did not materially reduce objective seriousness, but his youth, deprived background, substance abuse history and mental illness reduced moral culpability and the weight of general deterrence, while his mental conditions also heightened concerns about specific deterrence and community protection. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate. Taking...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 September 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence / Sentencing After Jury Verdict Finding the Offender Guilty of the Statutory Alternative Offence to Count 3
- Outcome
- Backup and related offences dismissed; offender sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Legal Topics
- ['enter Dwelling With Intent to Intimidate in Company' 'young Offender' 'mental Health and Sentencing' 'objective Seriousness' 'parity' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'dismissal of Backup and Related Offences']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentencing After Jury Verdict Finding the Offender Guilty of the Statutory Alternative Offence to Count 3
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the backup offence of having the offender's face disguised and the related offence of destroying or damaging property should be dismissed." "What facts should be found for sentencing consistently with the jury's verdict." 'Whether the offender should be dealt with according to law or under Pt 3 Div 4 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).' 'The objective seriousness of the offence of entering a dwelling house with intent to intimidate in company.' "The effect of the offender's youth, deprived background, substance abuse and mental health conditions on moral culpability, deterrence, community protection and rehabilitation." "Whether parity with Mr Murdoch's sentence affected the sentence to be imposed." "How totality and concurrency should be addressed given the offender's other sentences while in custody." 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and balance of term.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offender was to be dealt with according to law because the indictable offence was serious, involved a violent home invasion at night by five masked males, and the offender was 17 at the time, had prior serious offending and was on parole. The offending was at the lower end of the mid-range of seriousness. The offender's schizophrenia did not materially reduce objective seriousness, but his youth, deprived background, substance abuse history and mental illness reduced moral culpability and the weight of general deterrence, while his mental conditions also heightened concerns about specific deterrence and community protection. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate. Taking...
Court Disposition
Backup and related offences dismissed; offender sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Orders
- ['Pursuant to s 167(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the back up offence of the offender having his face disguised contrary to s 114(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is dismissed.' 'Pursuant to ss 168 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the related offence of destroying or damaging...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment