Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hammond [2017] NSWLC 9

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hammond [2017] NSWLC 9

The offending was serious home invasion conduct committed in company in the victims' home and caused substantial harm. Hammond and Clough were suitable for, and should serve their custodial sentences by, intensive correction orders because their involvement was less serious, while Viliamu's use of a knife, threats, escalation of the incident and prior criminal history required full-time imprisonment despite his rehabilitation efforts. Viliamu's drug addiction was not an exceptional mitigating factor, but his prospects of rehabilitation justified a finding of special circumstances for the non-parole periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence Following Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Each defendant was convicted on each sequence. Hammond and Clough were sentenced to imprisonment to be served by intensive correction orders, with Clough also fined for larceny. Viliamu was sentenced to full-time imprisonment with non-parole periods.
Legal Topics
['intimidation' 'remain in Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'armed With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'home Invasion' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Addiction as Mitigating Factor' 'intensive Correction Order' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['intimidation' 'remain in Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'armed With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'home Invasion' 'objective Seriousness' 'drug Addiction as Mitigating Factor' 'intensive Correction Order' 'special Circumstances']

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 Sentencing / Sentence Following Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Assessment of the objective seriousness of the defendants' offending arising from a home invasion at Gymea on 8 May 2016." 'Whether the section 5 imprisonment threshold was crossed and whether sentences of full-time custody or intensive correction orders were appropriate.' "Whether Viliamu's drug addiction from a young age should be treated as a mitigating factor on sentence." "Whether special circumstances justified varying the statutory ratio for Viliamu's non-parole periods."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offending was serious home invasion conduct committed in company in the victims' home and caused substantial harm. Hammond and Clough were suitable for, and should serve their custodial sentences by, intensive correction orders because their involvement was less serious, while Viliamu's use of a knife, threats, escalation of the incident and prior criminal history required full-time imprisonment despite his rehabilitation efforts. Viliamu's drug addiction was not an exceptional mitigating factor, but his prospects of rehabilitation justified a finding of special circumstances for the non-parole periods.

Court Disposition

Each defendant was convicted on each sequence. Hammond and Clough were sentenced to imprisonment to be served by intensive correction orders, with Clough also fined for larceny. Viliamu was sentenced to full-time imprisonment with non-parole periods.

Orders

  • ['Hammond: on each sequence convicted.' 'Hammond Seq 2: sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months and 15 days commencing 28 April 2017 and expiring 12 July 2018, to be served by way of an intensive correction order.' 'Hammond Seq 3: sentenced to imprisonment for 17 months and 15 days commencing 28 April 2017 and...