R v Larry Enrico Pucci [2018] NSWDC 10

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Larry Enrico Pucci [2018] NSWDC 10 Hearing dates: 29 January 2018 to 31 January 2018 Decision date: 09 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Custodial sentence. For orders see [26] Catchwords: Recklessly cause damage to property Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Veen v R (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Larry Enrico Pucci (Offender) Representation: Counsel: B Queenan (Crown) L Christoff (Offender)

Solicitors: Office of Department of Public Prosecution Crescent Head Legal File Number(s): 16/123790 Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON sentence

Introduction 1. On 29 January 2018, the offender pleaded not guilty to one count on an Indictment that he did recklessly damage property, to wit, one glass dock, the property of the Attorney General's Department, Taree Local Court. On 31 January 2018 a jury delivered a verdict of guilty to that charge. Following that verdict, learned Counsel for the offender was given the opportunity to obtain instructions to apply for an adjournment to enable the offender to prepare for a sentence hearing. He was instructed to proceed immediately to a sentence hearing.

The sentence hearing 1. The Crown tendered the offenders criminal antecedents, which became Ex A. Also tendered was the offender's custodial record, which became Ex B. 2. The record established that the offender had previously been sentenced in respect of other matters to a period of 2 years imprisonment to commence on 28 August 2015, which was to expire on 27 August 2017. A non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months was imposed, to expire on 27 December 2016. 3. The charge on the Indictment arose from conduct of the offender at the Taree Local Court on 21 March 2016. He was then in custody, however, the proceedings in which he was then involved were separate proceedings which concerned his then partner. 4. Those proceedings had the following history. They were commenced in the Forster Local Court on 22 October 2015, at which time the offender was represented by a solicitor. On that occasion, the offender's partner gave evidence. On 26 October 2015, the matter was listed at Forster Local Court for mention only and no evidence was presented. The offender was represented by a solicitor on that occasion. The matter was then transferred to the Taree Local Court and on 4 December 2015 the offender was represented by a solicitor. The witness gave evidence on that occasion and was cross-examined by the offender's solicitor. The solicitor was then sacked and when the matter resumed on 21 December 2015 at Taree Local Court, the witness gave further evidence and was cross-examined by the offender. 5. The matter was then mentioned at Taree Local Court on 7 March 2016 and stood over to 21 March 2016 for further hearing. It was on that occasion that the charge arose.