R v Chantelle Strnad [2018] NSWDC 280

R v Chantelle Strnad [2018] NSWDC 280

The offender's liability for Counts 1 and 2 arose from extended joint criminal enterprise: she agreed that Wayne Williams would intimidate the Bassal brothers by presenting a loaded prohibited firearm and foresaw the possibility that he would discharge it, though not at any person. Count 1 was well below mid-range but more than low range and required imprisonment because of the danger and need for denunciation and general deterrence. Count 2 was more serious, about mid-range, because the offender's foresight was much greater after the firearm had already been discharged and the dispute had escalated. Count 4 was toward the lower range and did not meet the s 5(1) imprisonment threshold...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty to Counts 1, 2 and 4
Outcome
The offender was convicted of Counts 1, 2 and 4, the prior s 9 good behaviour bond was revoked, a custodial sentence was imposed for the bond breach and an aggregate custodial sentence was imposed for Counts 1 and 2, with a separate 18 month s 9 good behaviour bond for Count 4.
Legal Topics
['use of a Prohibited Firearm' 'hindering a Police Investigation' 'pleas of Guilty' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'aggregate Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'totality']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['use of a Prohibited Firearm' 'hindering a Police Investigation' 'pleas of Guilty' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'aggregate Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'totality']

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 Counts 1, 2 and 4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What was the offender's criminal culpability and objective seriousness for the two offences of using a prohibited firearm where her liability arose through extended joint criminal enterprise." 'Whether imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty for Counts 1, 2 and 4 under s 5(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'What utilitarian discounts should be applied for the guilty pleas to Counts 1, 2 and 4.' 'How totality and proportionality should be applied to the firearms offences and the breach of the prior s 9 bond.' "Whether the offender's subjective circumstances, mental health and prospects of rehabilitation justified adjustment of the non-parole period and parole period ratio."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's liability for Counts 1 and 2 arose from extended joint criminal enterprise: she agreed that Wayne Williams would intimidate the Bassal brothers by presenting a loaded prohibited firearm and foresaw the possibility that he would discharge it, though not at any person. Count 1 was well below mid-range but more than low range and required imprisonment because of the danger and need for denunciation and general deterrence. Count 2 was more serious, about mid-range, because the offender's foresight was much greater after the firearm had already been discharged and the dispute had escalated. Count 4 was toward the lower range and did not meet the s 5(1) imprisonment threshold...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted of Counts 1, 2 and 4, the prior s 9 good behaviour bond was revoked, a custodial sentence was imposed for the bond breach and an aggregate custodial sentence was imposed for Counts 1 and 2, with a separate 18 month s 9 good behaviour bond for Count 4.

Orders

  • ['You are convicted of the following offences: use a prohibited firearm not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit, s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996; use a prohibited firearm not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit, s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996; and intentionally hindering an investigation by police of a...