R v White [2024] NSWDC 38

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2024] NSWDC 38 Hearing dates: 19 February 2024 Date of orders: 23 February 2024 Decision date: 23 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: See [151-153] Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Take/detain person in company. CRIME — Property offences — Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 Hall v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 220 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 Texts Cited: NA Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (The Crown) Dylan White (The offender) Representation: Counsel: Anderson for White Biffin for The Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions

Solicitors: Fuggle for White File Number(s): 2022/00368935 Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. These are the reasons for sentence following a hearing on 19 February 2024, when Dylan White appeared to be sentenced for the following three offences, all committed on the same day, 12 November 2017 when he was 26 years old, and in the company of four other men: 1. Aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence namely armed robbery; 2. Detaining a person in company with the intent to obtain an advantage where the victim was Shawn Gardner; 3. Detaining a person in company with the intent to obtain an advantage where the victim was Mitch Lavelle. 1. The maximum sentence for the break and enter charge is 20 years and there is a standard non-parole period of five years. The maximum sentence for each of detain charges, which are brought under s86(2) as aggravated offences, is 20 years with no standard non-parole period. 2. In relation to the maximum sentences and, in respect of the section 112(2) offence, the standard non-parole period, those matters are taken into account as legislative guideposts, indicating the legislature's view as to the seriousness of the offences so as to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence. In relation to the standard non-parole period I note that in Muldrock (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [29] the High Court made clear that it has application even when the offending is not considered to be in the middle of the range of seriousness as that term is used in section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act ("CSPA"). 3. There are no matters on a Form 1 to be taken into account nor are there any matters to be dealt with in a summary fashion pursuant to a section 166 certificate. The offender was not on conditional liberty at the time of the offence. There were four co-offenders, three of whom have been sentenced; a person accused of being the fourth co offender is awaiting trial.