R v Gurung [2012] NSWDC 272

R v Gurung [2012] NSWDC 272

The offences required imprisonment. The false accusation was serious because it falsely alleged sexual assault and could have exposed ST to grave consequences, while the enter building offence was at the lowest range of seriousness because the offender could not carry out the intended graffiti. The offender's late guilty pleas had only minimal utility, there was no acceptable evidence of genuine remorse or contrition, and rehabilitation prospects were limited. Special circumstances were found because of the offender's age and first period of imprisonment, despite likely deportation. The Court also held it had no jurisdiction to entertain withdrawal of the guilty pleas after findings of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Offender convicted on both offences and sentenced to imprisonment, with parole ordered on 7 June 2013.
Legal Topics
['false Accusation of Sexual Assault' 'enter Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'withdrawal of Guilty Pleas' 'section 157 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['false Accusation of Sexual Assault' 'enter Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'withdrawal of Guilty Pleas' 'section 157 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'remorse and Rehabilitation' 'special Circumstances' 'general Deterrence']

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 / Sentence Following Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for making a false accusation with intent to subject ST to an investigation for sexual assault.' 'What sentence should be imposed for entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intentionally damaging the property of ST.' 'Whether, after the Court followed the procedure in section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and found guilt as if by jury verdict, it had jurisdiction to entertain an application to withdraw the guilty pleas.' 'Whether the offender had demonstrated genuine remorse or contrition and prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether special circumstances should be found to vary the statutory relationship between the non-parole period and the balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences required imprisonment. The false accusation was serious because it falsely alleged sexual assault and could have exposed ST to grave consequences, while the enter building offence was at the lowest range of seriousness because the offender could not carry out the intended graffiti. The offender's late guilty pleas had only minimal utility, there was no acceptable evidence of genuine remorse or contrition, and rehabilitation prospects were limited. Special circumstances were found because of the offender's age and first period of imprisonment, despite likely deportation. The Court also held it had no jurisdiction to entertain withdrawal of the guilty pleas after findings of...

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on both offences and sentenced to imprisonment, with parole ordered on 7 June 2013.

Orders

  • ['Renuka Gurung is convicted in relation to each of the two offences.' 'For entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, that is, to intentionally damage the property of ST, Renuka Gurung is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of three months to date from 8 June 2012 and to expire on 7...