R v Walsh; R v Dryer [2022] NSWDC 363

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walsh; R v Dryer [2022] NSWDC 363 Hearing dates: 9 June 2022 Date of orders: 9 June 2022 Decision date: 09 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: See [43]-[45]. Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – ASSAULT OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – Please of guilty entered for recklessly wound in company and reckless damage to property – Co-offenders assaulted the victim – Whether Intensive Correction Order appropriate – Additional order for payment of compensation for damage to property. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil. Texts Cited: Nil. Category: Sentence Parties: R – Crown First Offender – Tabitha Walsh Second Offender - Alex Peter Dryer Representation: Counsel: R – Mr Holden First Offender – Ms Taylor Second Offender – Mr Andersen Solicitors: R – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions First Offender – Graeme Morrison of Morrisons Second Offender – Analise Ritchie of Morrisons File Number(s): 2021/00066792; 2021/00066845. Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background 1. HIS HONOUR: The First and Second Offenders stand for sentence as a consequence of their pleading guilty to a charge that on 9 March 2021 at Barrack Point in this state, they did, while in the company of each other, recklessly wound Antony Franz. That is an offence contrary to s 31(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of imprisonment for ten years. Parliament has also fixed a standard non-parole period of four years. 2. If the offenders had not pleaded guilty, and the matter had gone to trial, and they were convicted, and I found that the offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness, then I would be constrained to impose the standard non-parole period of four years, which might indicate a head sentence of between five or six years. 3. The First Offender also stands for sentence for a crime of reckless damage to property, an offence contrary to s195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period for that offence. A charge of reckless damage to property can, of course, cover a large number of different crimes, a large number of different circumstances, and the extent of the damage proportionate to the value of the property that was damaged. Some damage to property can cost millions of dollars. There is no suggestion of such in the present case.