AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 November 2009

R v Steven Paul HAINES

[2009] NSWDC 418

Theft & property
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE PLEA OF GUILTY AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL PRE

Citation: R v Steven Paul Haines [2009] NSWDC 418
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 November 2009
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 30-year-old man with a history of heroin addiction, pleaded guilty to aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The plea was entered at the earliest available opportunity following his charge in October 2008.

The offence occurred in July 2008, when the offender and an associate drove to a department store in Auburn, changed the car's number plates to disguise its ownership, smashed a window to gain entry, and attempted to steal a plasma television and microwave. Security discovered them before they could leave with the goods. The offender was identified through his wallet, left behind in the car, and through blood found at the scene.

The offender had a prior criminal record involving drug and property offences, for which he had received fines in the Local Court. Critically, he was on bail for separate charges at the time he committed this offence.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for an aggravated break and enter offence where the offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity but committed the offence while on bail?
  • Whether a s 9 good behaviour bond (without conviction) was appropriate in the circumstances.
  • Whether a sentence of imprisonment, suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, was within the available range.
  • What weight should be given to the offender's drug dependency, prospects of rehabilitation, and personal history in mitigation?

Decision

The court found the offence fell in the lower range of objective seriousness for crimes of this type. The premises were commercial rather than residential, the property was not ultimately removed, no persons were present, and the damage was limited to the broken window. The court accepted that this conduct was far removed from the home invasion scenarios Parliament had in mind when setting the standard non-parole period of five years.

Cogswell SC DCJ rejected the submission that a s 9 bond without conviction was appropriate. The seriousness of the offence, combined with the fact it was committed while the offender was already on bail, meant a non-custodial bond of that kind was an insufficient response. The offender had previously been given the benefit of being at liberty in the community and had breached that trust.

The court accepted that a suspended sentence under s 12 was within range, given the combination of mitigating factors: the early guilty plea, the offender's drug-driven motivation, his traumatic and abusive childhood (documented in a psychologist's report), a significant gap in offending between 2001 and 2008, and his expressed desire to rehabilitate. The pre-sentence report found him unsuitable for community service or periodic detention, and the psychologist offered a guarded but not hopeless prognosis for change if substance use issues were addressed.

The court imposed a term of imprisonment but suspended the sentence on conditions, including supervision by Probation and Parole. The judge explicitly warned the offender that a suspended sentence of this kind carries a strong presumption of full imprisonment upon any breach.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence.
  • A sentence of imprisonment was imposed and suspended for two years under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • The offender was placed on a bond requiring: good behaviour; acceptance of Probation and Parole supervision; notification to the court Registrar of any change of address; and reporting to the Bankstown Probation and Parole office on or before 27 November 2009.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that an offence of aggravated break and enter, even at the lower end of objective seriousness, is sufficiently serious that a s 9 bond without conviction will generally be inadequate, particularly where the offence was committed while on bail.
  • Committing an offence on bail is a significant aggravating factor that compounds both the objective seriousness of the conduct and the court's assessment of the offender's willingness to respect court-granted freedoms.
  • A suspended sentence under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 remained available where strong mitigating factors existed, including an early guilty plea, entrenched drug dependency as a causative factor, psychological evidence of a difficult background, and genuine rehabilitative intent.
  • Under s 12 suspended sentence conditions, the court emphasised that breach creates a strong presumption of immediate full imprisonment, distinguishing these orders from more flexible bond arrangements.
  • Sufficient evidence of rehabilitation potential, even where assessed as "guarded" by a psychologist, can weigh in favour of a non-custodial outcome when combined with other mitigating features.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 112(2) (aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence; maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 9 (good behaviour bond without conviction) and s 12 (suspended sentences)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.