R v Vandermade [2022] NSWDC 679

R v Vandermade [2022] NSWDC 679

The offender was guilty of shooting at the victim with intent to murder by participating in a planned and coordinated joint criminal enterprise to ambush the victim with firearms. Although the jury's acquittal on the firearm possession count meant the court was not satisfied that the offender personally shot at the victim, the offender knowingly drove his red Jaguar into the driveway in a way designed to impede the victim's escape, knew at least one participant was armed, and was involved because of animosity towards the victim. The offence was well within the mid-range of objective seriousness, with aggravating features including planning, offending in company, danger to the public and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Shoot at With Intent to Murder / Sentencing After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 1 and Not Guilty on Count 4
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to 14 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years and 7 months; the s.166 certificate offence was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Legal Topics
['shoot at With Intent to Murder' 'violent Offences' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'firearms' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'mental Health in Sentencing' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['shoot at With Intent to Murder' 'violent Offences' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'firearms' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'mental Health in Sentencing' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 for Shoot at With Intent to Murder / Sentencing After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 1 and Not Guilty on Count 4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What facts should be found consistently with the jury's verdicts for sentencing purposes." 'Whether the offender participated in a joint criminal enterprise to ambush and shoot at the victim with intent to murder.' 'What the objective seriousness of the offence was, including the relevance of planning, offending in company, public safety, injury, and risk to another person.' "What weight should be given to the offender's criminal history, mental health, custodial conditions, lack of remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether special circumstances justified departure from the standard non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was guilty of shooting at the victim with intent to murder by participating in a planned and coordinated joint criminal enterprise to ambush the victim with firearms. Although the jury's acquittal on the firearm possession count meant the court was not satisfied that the offender personally shot at the victim, the offender knowingly drove his red Jaguar into the driveway in a way designed to impede the victim's escape, knew at least one participant was armed, and was involved because of animosity towards the victim. The offence was well within the mid-range of objective seriousness, with aggravating features including planning, offending in company, danger to the public and...

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to 14 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years and 7 months; the s.166 certificate offence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Orders

  • ['Impose a sentence of 14 years and 6 months imprisonment. The sentence consists of a non-parole period of 9 years 7 months and a balance of term of 4 years and 11 months.' 'The sentence commences 3 September 2020 and expires on 2 March 2035. The non-parole period expires on 2 April 2030.' 'The offence on the...