R v Wright [2022] NSWDC 203

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wright [2022] NSWDC 203 Hearing dates: 03/06/2022 Date of orders: 09/06/2022 Decision date: 09 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC, DCJ Decision: See Order Below [72] Catchwords: CRIME — Public order offences — Affray CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly Cause grievous bodily harm Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: Muldrock 244 CLR 120 R v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47 Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645 R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284 La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 Bonett v R [2013] NSWCCA 234 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 Alferink [2021] NSWDC 473 R v Leete [2001] NSWCCA 337 Blanch v R [2019] NSWCCA 304 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Wright (Offender) Representation: Franklin Crown Prosecutor for the Director of Public Prosecutions Anderson Counsel for the Offender Greg Coombes Solicitor for the Offender File Number(s): 2020/00359543 Publication restriction: Unrestricted.

Introduction 1. Ethan Wright appears for sentence for two offences. Both offences arise out of the same events on 12 December 2020. One offence is of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in contravention of section 35(2) of the Crimes Act. That offence has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of four years. The other offence is of affray under section 93C(1) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. 2. The maximum sentence and in the case of the section 35(2) offence the standard non-parole period, are legislative guideposts to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. They indicate the view of the legislature as to the seriousness of the offending. In respect of the standard non-parole period I note the provisions of section 54A(2) and that it represents the non-parole period for an offence that is in the middle of the range of seriousness taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of the offence. By section 54B(2) the standard non-parole period for an offence is a matter to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender without limiting the matters that are otherwise required or permitted to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. 3. In this case both parties agreed that the offending objectively was in the middle of the range of seriousness. I note the statements in Muldrock at [27] that the function of the standard non-parole period as a legislative guidepost operates whether the objective seriousness assessment is low or mid or high. That the assessment here may be considered in the middle of the range of seriousness perhaps makes considerations clearer but arguably does not give the standard non-parole period any greater weight. 4. There are no matters to be considered by way of the Form 1 procedure, nor are there any matters to be dealt with by way of a section 166 certificate. 5. The offender was arrested on 18 December 2020 and was held in custody until 26 June 2021, a period of six months and eight days. The offender was not on conditional liberty at the time of the offence and indeed putting aside a juvenile matter which is argued should not be considered, this is his first offending. The offender was born on 1 January 1999 so that he was 21 at the time of the offending and is now 23. Upon his release from custody he was placed on bail conditions which included a curfew prohibiting him from being away from his residence from the evening to the following morning.