Citation: R v Matthew James Rickard [2006] NSWDC 150
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 December 2006
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ
Background
The offender was in a relationship with the victim that began in early 2003 and experienced difficulties shortly after it commenced. He had previously been convicted of assaulting the same victim in October 2003 and was serving a bond for that offence at the time of the conduct in question.
On 5 March 2006, the offender entered the victim's home without invitation. Before her return, he had switched off the power to the property and let himself in while her companion briefly left to buy cigarettes. When confronted, he refused to leave and searched the rooms, apparently looking for evidence that she was with another man. He took a leather jacket belonging to her companion and left, prompting the victim to call emergency services.
The offender pleaded guilty to one count of intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm, and one count of larceny in relation to the jacket (which was later returned).
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for an offence of intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm, taking into account the offender's personal circumstances and conduct?
- What weight should be given to the offender's early guilty plea, claimed remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation?
- Whether fulltime custody was warranted, or whether periodic detention was an appropriate alternative?
- What sentence was appropriate for the concurrent larceny offence?
Decision
Berman SC DCJ found that the offender's stated motivations, including a claim that he visited the victim out of concern for her health, were dishonest. The court observed that a person genuinely concerned for another's welfare would not search their home or leave with a stranger's jacket. Inconsistencies between what the offender told the pre-sentence report author and what he told the psychiatrist further undermined his credibility and any claim of genuine remorse.
The court found that the offending was planned. The offender had disabled the power to the property to gain covert entry, and he had apparently waited for the victim to return. His background as an electrician was noted in this context. The fact that he was on a bond at the time was an aggravating feature, and his removal from a domestic violence program after 32 weeks for disruptive behaviour and lack of insight was also taken into account.
Despite these findings, the court declined to impose fulltime custody. The offender's good work history and absence of serious prior offending were the decisive factors in favour of periodic detention. The 25 per cent discount for the early guilty plea was applied, though the court expressly declined to find remorse, good prospects of rehabilitation, or a low likelihood of reoffending.
Orders Made
- Intimidation offence: Imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months and a head sentence of 2 years, to be served by way of periodic detention at Parramatta Periodic Detention Centre, commencing 23 December 2006.
- Larceny offence: Fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months, served by way of periodic detention, concurrently with the above sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A central consideration in sentencing is the likelihood of reoffending, which the District Court assessed by reference to the degree to which the offender genuinely accepted responsibility for the conduct rather than merely entering a formal guilty plea.
- Inconsistent accounts given to different court-appointed assessors undermined the offender's credibility, and the court was not bound to accept the version recorded in the pre-sentence report.
- Planned domestic intimidation, including conduct designed to conceal entry into a victim's home, was treated as a serious offence warranting a custodial sentence even in the absence of physical assault.
- The absence of prior serious offending, combined with a good employment history, was sufficient to displace fulltime custody in favour of periodic detention, notwithstanding the court's express findings against remorse or rehabilitation.
- An early guilty plea attracted a 25 per cent discount, but that discount operates independently of findings about genuine remorse or insight into offending behaviour.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act (NSW) (specific provisions not identified in the judgment)
Cases cited: None identified in the provided judgment text.