R v Powers; R v Day [2020] NSWDC 574

R v Powers; R v Day [2020] NSWDC 574

Because each offender knowingly assisted Butler while he was at large for a very serious alleged offence, general deterrence and objective seriousness required custodial sentences. However, taking into account their guilty pleas, time already served, special circumstances, differing culpability, vulnerability, rehabilitation, and prospects of supervision in the community, the Court concluded that neither offender should return to gaol and that parole after the non-parole periods already served would sufficiently meet the purposes of sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty to Hindering Apprehension
Outcome
Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment with non-parole periods treated as expiring on 23 July 2020 and were to be released to parole subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['hindering Apprehension of Person Who Committed Serious Offence' 'murder Investigation' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Use' 'duress' 'rehabilitation' 'parole' 'special Circumstances' 'intensive Correction Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['hindering Apprehension of Person Who Committed Serious Offence' 'murder Investigation' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Use' 'duress' 'rehabilitation' 'parole' 'special Circumstances' 'intensive Correction Order']

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 Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty to Hindering Apprehension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed on each offender for hindering the apprehension of Darren Butler, who was wanted by police in relation to a serious offence.' 'Whether the offences were sufficiently serious to require custodial sentences and whether those sentences should be served by full-time custody, intensive correction, or parole after time served.' 'How the Court should assess objective seriousness, general deterrence, guilty pleas, prior custody, rehabilitation, drug use, vulnerability to manipulation, and alleged duress.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because each offender knowingly assisted Butler while he was at large for a very serious alleged offence, general deterrence and objective seriousness required custodial sentences. However, taking into account their guilty pleas, time already served, special circumstances, differing culpability, vulnerability, rehabilitation, and prospects of supervision in the community, the Court concluded that neither offender should return to gaol and that parole after the non-parole periods already served would sufficiently meet the purposes of sentencing.

Court Disposition

Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment with non-parole periods treated as expiring on 23 July 2020 and were to be released to parole subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Holy Powers: sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year 1 month 13 days, with a non-parole period of 3 months 13 days commencing 11/04/2020 and expiring 23/07/2020, and a parole period of 10 months expiring 22/05/2021.' 'Holy Powers: released to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period, subject to accepting...