R v Lynne Maree THURLOW [2009] NSWDC 207

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Lynne Maree THURLOW [2009] NSWDC 207

HEARING DATE(S): 13 March 2009

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 March 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: For the offence of aggravated break enter and steal the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months with a head sentence of two and a half years. For the offence of possessing house breaking implements the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a fixed term of six months, that is a fixed term because of the other sentence. I order that both sentences are to be served by way of periodic detention

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Aggravated break, enter and steal - Possess house breaking implements - Middle of the range of objective seriousness

PARTIES: The Crown Lynne Maree Thurlow

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2008/11/1016

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP Legal Aid Commission

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Lynne Maree Thurlow appears for sentence today on two serious offences. They are related to each other. The first and most serious is an offence of aggravated break enter and steal. The second offence is one of possessing house breaking implements. The house breaking implements were used as part of the aggravated break enter and steal offence, so in view of that overlap she will receive no extra punishment because of the housebreaking implements matter.

2 On 18 June Ms Thurlow and her de facto husband, Mr Boyd, went out fishing. They had an argument and Mr Boyd walked off. Ms Thurlow was then taken, some time later, by a friend of Mr Boyd's called Chris, to where Mr Boyd was. He was in fact near or at a public school in Balmain East. When they got there Ms Thurlow said she needed to use the toilet, therefore she says Mr Boyd helped her climb over the fence into the school. She used the toilet and when she came out she found that Mr Boyd had come up with the idea of breaking into one of the classrooms and stealing some electrical equipment inside. I say at once that this is a rather different version to that given by Mr Boyd when I sentenced him last year. His evidence was that the idea to break into the school did not come up after he had helped Ms Thurlow across the fence in order to use the toilet. His evidence was that there was much more forethought and planning. However that evidence has not been admitted on the sentence proceedings. Ms Thurlow's evidence as to the circumstances in which the offence was committed is uncontested and I will therefore sentence her on the basis of the evidence that she gave rather than the evidence that Mr Boyd gave earlier.