Citation: R v Matthew MYATT [2009] NSWDC 419
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 April 2009
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ
Background
The offender pleaded guilty to four offences arising from a single episode in the early hours of 6 September 2007: two counts of break, enter and steal, one count of break and enter with intent, and one count of malicious damage to property. The offences involved breaking into a commercial building in Parramatta, entering multiple offices, stealing cameras and cash from two of them, and causing an estimated $50,000 in damage to doors, glass panels, and windows across the complex.
The offender had a significant criminal history dating from his juvenile years, including prior convictions for breaking and entering and malicious damage. He had a severe drug addiction at the time of the offences, with a habit that had reached up to $1,200 per day, involving heroin as well as prior use of cannabis, ecstasy, and amphetamines. A registered psychologist assessed his IQ at 114 and noted above-average academic potential.
Prior to this sentencing, the Parramatta Drug Court had sentenced the offender on 3 March 2008 for separate but related break and enter offences committed about a month after the current offences. That court imposed sentences with a non-parole period effectively expiring on 9 September 2010, and referred the offender to the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program at Parklea.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for the four guilty pleas, having regard to the offender's criminal history, drug addiction, and the objective seriousness of the offences?
- Whether the new sentences should run concurrently with the existing Drug Court sentences, rather than extending the non-parole period beyond that already being served.
- Whether the offender's participation in and progress through the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program was a relevant and weighty consideration in structuring the new sentences.
- Whether a referral to the Drug Court under s 106W(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 was appropriate.
Decision
The court characterised the offending as serious: it was premeditated, caused substantial financial and practical harm to the building owner and tenants, and was part of a pattern of acquisitive crime driven by a significant drug addiction. The existence of a prior criminal record for similar offences was an aggravating factor. At the same time, the guilty plea attracted a sentencing discount, and the drug addiction, while not excusing the conduct, explained it.
The court placed considerable weight on the offender's remarkable progress within the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program. Since entering the program in April 2008, the offender had advanced to stage two, was undertaking TAFE studies in Information Technology, was spending supervised social leave with his mother, and had concrete rehabilitation plans. The court accepted that his prospects of rehabilitation were good, and considered this more confidently than the Drug Court had been able to at the time of the earlier sentence.
The court accepted the defence submission that the new sentences should run concurrently with the existing ones, with non-parole periods expiring within the currency of the existing non-parole period. A key reason for this approach was the court's concern that moving the offender from the structured Compulsory Drug Treatment Centre environment into the general prison population to serve an extended non-parole period would undermine the rehabilitation progress already made.
The total sentence imposed was three years imprisonment, backdated to 10 June 2008 to align with the commencement of the Drug Court sentence, with an overall non-parole period of two years. The offender was also referred to the Drug Court under s 106W(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.
Orders Made
- Total term of 3 years imprisonment, backdated to 10 June 2008 (expiring 9 June 2011)
- Non-parole period of 2 years, with the overall effect of the non-parole periods expiring on 9 June 2010
- Formal orders directing release on parole on 9 June 2009 and 9 June 2010 made under s 50(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (though the court noted these would not take practical effect given the existing Drug Court non-parole period expiring 9 September 2010)
- Referral to the Drug Court under s 106W(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Key Takeaways
- Demonstrated progress in a Compulsory Drug Treatment Program can significantly influence the structure of a concurrent sentence, particularly where extending the non-parole period would interrupt that rehabilitation.
- The District Court was prepared to assess rehabilitation prospects more favourably than an earlier sentencing court had been, where the offender's conduct in the intervening period provided a firmer evidentiary basis for that assessment.
- Concurrent sentences with non-parole periods falling within an existing non-parole period are available where the offences are proximate in time and where rehabilitation considerations weigh heavily in favour of that approach.
- Under s 106W(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, a sentencing court retains the power to refer an offender to the Drug Court even where that offender is already subject to a Drug Court sentence and is participating in the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program.
- Drug addiction was treated as a contextual explanatory factor rather than a mitigating excuse, consistent with the general approach in NSW sentencing law to addiction-related offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(1), 113(1), 195(1)(a)
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 106W(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 50(1)
Cases cited: No cases were cited in the judgment.