R v Paddison (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 470

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paddison (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 470 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 09 September 2021 Decision date: 09 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 10 Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentence – firearms offence – consideration of sentencing assessment report concerning offender's suitability for home detention – whether to order sentence of imprisonment be served by intensive correction Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 66 Cases Cited: Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 R v Paddison [2021] NSWDC 291 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Mr S Paddison (offender) Representation: Counsel: Mr T Gabrial (solicitor) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Mr D Wakim (solicitor) for the offender

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) File Number(s): 2020/00121950 Publication restriction: Nil.

SENTENCING REMARKS

Background 1. On 2 July 2021, this sentencing proceeding was adjourned, but not before the Court determined that the appropriate punishment for the two offences of possession of a firearm without authority, was a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months. The sentencing remarks were published in CaseLaw as R v Paddison [2021] NSWDC 291. 2. The commencement of that term of imprisonment was stayed and the sentencing proceeding was adjourned to enable the Court to receive a report concerning the suitability of a home detention condition to assist the Court to determine whether the term of imprisonment should be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). As noted in the earlier remarks, the receipt of such report was a precondition to an ICO being ordered with the condition of home detention. 3. On 24 August 2021, Ms Longden, the Community Corrections Officer of the Mount Druitt Community Corrections office prepared a sentencing assessment report for this purpose. The gist of the report was that Ms Longden assessed the offender's home accommodation as being suitable for a period of home detention. In coming to that conclusion, Ms Longden reasoned that although there was a risk that an extended period of home detention may cause the offender's PTSD to deteriorate, that risk could be managed. The report also laid out a supervision plan. 4. As envisaged in my earlier remarks, both the Crown and the offender were given the opportunity to make further submissions upon the question whether the Court should direct that the term of imprisonment be served by ICO in the light of this report, consistently within the limitations referred to in those earlier remarks. In the event, neither the Crown nor the offender availed themselves of that opportunity.