R v Clissold [2014] NSWDC 271

R v Clissold [2014] NSWDC 271

The offender's conduct was serious because it included larceny of a valuable caravan, receiving stolen property, and disposing of stolen firearms within the community. The seriousness of supplying stolen firearms, reflected in the ten-year maximum for s 188(1) Crimes Act offences, required imprisonment and made Joshua King's sentence of limited assistance because King was sentenced for different, less serious firearms offences. Mitigating factors included the offender's negligible criminal record, relative youth, first time in custody, family support, positive pre-sentence report, rehabilitation prospects, and plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. Those matters justified a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted of all offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.
Legal Topics
['larceny' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'disposing of Stolen Property' 'stolen Firearms' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'parity' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['larceny' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'disposing of Stolen Property' 'stolen Firearms' 'aggregate Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'parity' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for the larceny, disposing of stolen property and receiving stolen property offences.' 'Whether offences admitted on a Form 1 should be taken into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether an aggregate sentence should be imposed under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the offender should receive a 25% discount for pleading guilty at the earliest available opportunity.' 'Whether special circumstances justified reducing the usual relationship between the head sentence and non-parole period.' "What, if any, application the principle of parity had in light of Joshua King's sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's conduct was serious because it included larceny of a valuable caravan, receiving stolen property, and disposing of stolen firearms within the community. The seriousness of supplying stolen firearms, reflected in the ten-year maximum for s 188(1) Crimes Act offences, required imprisonment and made Joshua King's sentence of limited assistance because King was sentenced for different, less serious firearms offences. Mitigating factors included the offender's negligible criminal record, relative youth, first time in custody, family support, positive pre-sentence report, rehabilitation prospects, and plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. Those matters justified a...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted of all offences and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of all offences.' 'An aggregate sentence of 3 years and 4 months is imposed under s 53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, commencing on 5 June 2013 and expiring on 4 October 2016.' 'One non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months for all offences to which the sentence relates is fixed,...