NSW Caselaw
New South Wales District Court
CITATION: R v DUNBAR [2010] NSWDC 94 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 22 April 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 22 April 2010
JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ
DECISION: The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non parole period of two years and a head sentence of four years.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Break, enter and steal in company - Need for Methadone - Offence significantly below middle of range of objective seriousness
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
PARTIES: The Crown Noel Raymond Dunbar
FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/203727
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: Noel Dunbar is a man who should by this age be growing out of his repeated offending.
2 He was born in Sydney and brought up in Redfern. The circumstances of his upbringing were such that the decision as to whether he should commit offences or not was made with no real favourable role models to assist him. What he saw as he grew up was drinking and fighting. He did not even go to high school, he says that it was his decision but there was no-one around apparently to make him.
3 From the age of twelve he started drinking which progressed to the use of drugs. His criminal history is replete with offences committed presumably in order to obtain money for drugs.
4 He was released from custody on parole and instead of reverting back to illegal drug use, he was maintaining himself on methadone for some time. Unfortunately, however, the chemist who supplied him with methadone banned him from entering the premises. The offender said this was because he has tattoos on his arms and legs and they were scaring the young female staff members. Whatever the reason, the consequence was that the offender could not obtain methadone. He was hanging out for three or four days until, as a spur of the moment decision, he took a concrete drainage cover, smashed the front door of the chemist shop, and with another person, went into the shop and took a number of drugs. The offender says that he took methadone because that is what he needed, as well as Subutex, a drug that his sister was taking at the time. The offender says that his co-offender took a whole manner of other drugs. It did not take long for the police to work out who was responsible because, only a few hours after committing the offence, police went to the premises where the offender was living and recovered almost all of the drugs. What they did not recover was a small quantity of methadone and some other tablets.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate