R v Geerlings [2019] NSWDC 83

R v Geerlings [2019] NSWDC 83

Where the facts relied on for sentencing are not genuinely agreed, a contested facts hearing is required to resolve disputed matters. An 'agreed statement of facts' should only contain matters that are actually agreed between the parties.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Offender: Paul Frederick Geerlings
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence Hearing Adjourned; Contest on Facts Required
Outcome
Sentence hearing adjourned; contested facts hearing required.
Legal Topics
Sentence Proceedings, Contested Facts Hearing, Agreed Statement of Facts
Criminal Law Sentence Proceedings Contested Facts Hearing Agreed Statement of Facts

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Paul Frederick Geerlings

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence Hearing Adjourned; Contest on Facts Required

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of facts tendered is genuinely agreed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether a contested facts hearing is necessary due to lack of agreement on exculpatory explanations

Ratio Decidendi

Where the facts relied on for sentencing are not genuinely agreed, a contested facts hearing is required to resolve disputed matters. An 'agreed statement of facts' should only contain matters that are actually agreed between the parties.

Court Disposition

Sentence hearing adjourned; contested facts hearing required.

Orders

  • Contested facts hearing listed for 16 April 2019.
  • Matters on Form 1 not certified at this stage; can be dealt with as s 166 certificates on next occasion if offender consents.