R v Christopher DULANAS [2011] NSWDC 102

R v Christopher DULANAS [2011] NSWDC 102

The offences were all slightly below the midpoint of objective seriousness, but the offender's significant criminal history, offending while on bail, and violence in the assault with intent to rob made the case serious. His earliest available guilty pleas warranted substantial discounts, but his remorse was limited and rehabilitation prospects were guarded. Because there were two victims in the demand property with menaces offences and a separate later victim and occasion for the assault with intent to rob, partial accumulation was required, producing an overall sentence of five years and one month with an overall non-parole period of three years and three months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Guilty Pleas at the Earliest Available Opportunity
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of five years and one month, backdated to commence on 1 October 2010, with an overall non-parole period of three years and three months expiring on 31 December 2013.
Legal Topics
['demand Property With Menaces' 'assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'offending While on Bail' 'prior Criminal History' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'rehabilitation Prospects']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['demand Property With Menaces' 'assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'offending While on Bail' 'prior Criminal History' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'objective Seriousness' 'partial Accumulation of Sentences' 'rehabilitation Prospects']

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 Following Guilty Pleas at the Earliest Available Opportunity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed for two offences of demanding property with menaces under s 99 of the Crimes Act 1900 and one offence of assault with intent to rob in company under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.' "How the offender's early guilty pleas, prior criminal history, offending while on bail, drug use, remorse and rehabilitation prospects should affect sentence." 'Whether the sentences should be concurrent or partially accumulated given the two victims and the separate offending occasion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were all slightly below the midpoint of objective seriousness, but the offender's significant criminal history, offending while on bail, and violence in the assault with intent to rob made the case serious. His earliest available guilty pleas warranted substantial discounts, but his remorse was limited and rehabilitation prospects were guarded. Because there were two victims in the demand property with menaces offences and a separate later victim and occasion for the assault with intent to rob, partial accumulation was required, producing an overall sentence of five years and one month with an overall non-parole period of three years and three months.

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of five years and one month, backdated to commence on 1 October 2010, with an overall non-parole period of three years and three months expiring on 31 December 2013.

Orders

  • ['For the first offence of demanding money with menaces, a non-parole period of two years and six months commencing on 1 October 2010 and expiring on 31 March 2013, with a balance of term of fifteen months commencing on 1 April 2013 and expiring on 30 June 2014.' 'For the second offence of demanding money with...