AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 19 May 2014

Sales v R

[2014] NSWDC 280

Assault & violenceFraud & dishonestyTheft & property
CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT DEMONSTRATED INTENTION TO REHABILITATE PRE SENTENCE REPORT

Citation: Sales v R [2014] NSWDC 280
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 May 2014
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ

Background

The appellant had been sentenced across multiple offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including robbery (s 94), possession of implements (s 156), aggravated assault (s 189), break and enter (s 112(1)(a)), and fraud (s 192E(1)(a)). He appealed against those sentences in the District Court. The appellant had spent approximately 10 months and two days in custody by the time the appeal was determined.

Rather than resolving the appeal immediately, the court had previously adjourned the sentencing appeal on 5 August 2013 under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), imposing conditions designed to give the appellant an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation. The present judgment represented the court's final determination of that appeal following the adjournment period.

  • Whether the appellant had sufficiently complied with the conditions of the s 11 adjournment to warrant a favourable variation of his sentences
  • Whether the sentencing court had power under s 20(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) to vary the sentences on appeal
  • Whether the sentences should be suspended under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and on what terms

Decision

The court was satisfied that, despite some imperfect compliance with the conditions set during the adjournment, the appellant had demonstrated a genuine intent to rehabilitate. Factors weighing in his favour included remaining offence-free, securing employment, maintaining a stable relationship, and keeping reasonable contact with the Probation and Parole Service. A valid explanation was provided for his non-attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous.

The respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, conceded that a case had been made out for the sentences to be suspended. The court accepted that compliance was not perfect but found the discrepancies adequately explained and the overall compliance reasonable.

On that basis, the court allowed the appeals and varied the sentences. The principal outcome was the effective imposition of an 18-month suspended sentence, achieved through orders suspending the execution of multiple sentences and releasing the appellant on conditional good behaviour bonds. Several of the fraud offences were reduced in length and brought into the same custodial period already served.

Orders Made

  • Offence under s 94 (robbery): sentence suspended for nine months; appellant released on a nine-month good behaviour bond
  • Offence under s 156 (possession of implements): 18-month sentence suspended in full; appellant released on an 18-month good behaviour bond
  • Appeal against s 192E(1)(a) offence (from exhibit A): leave granted to withdraw that appeal
  • Offences 1 to 5 against s 192E(1)(a) (exhibit B): each sentence reduced to three months, running from 24 April 2013 to 23 July 2013
  • Two offences under s 189 (aggravated assault) and one offence under s 112(1)(a) (break and enter): sentences suspended for six months; appellant released on six-month good behaviour bonds
  • Conditions of each good behaviour bond:
  • Be of good behaviour
  • Notify the Gosford District Court Registrar of any change in residential address
  • Attend court if called upon
  • Accept supervision from Corrective Services Community Corrections, including referral to relapse prevention programs, monitoring of Alcoholics Anonymous attendance, monitoring of employment, and monitoring of relationship and financial status

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a court may adjourn a sentence appeal and impose conditions; a subsequent determination may vary sentences favourably where the offender demonstrates rehabilitation intent during the adjournment period.
  • Imperfect compliance with adjournment conditions does not automatically foreclose a favourable outcome. The District Court treated compliance as a matter of overall assessment, accepting reasonable explanations for individual shortfalls.
  • Where the prosecution concedes that a case for suspension has been made out, that concession carries weight in the court's determination, though the decision remains one for the sentencing judge.
  • Suspension of a sentence under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) may be paired with a conditional good behaviour bond, with tailored conditions drawn directly from the pre-sentence report.
  • A significant period of pre-determination custody, together with stable employment and relationships established during an adjournment period, can collectively support a court's decision to impose a fully suspended sentence even where the offender's prior record is extensive.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 94, 112(1)(a), 156, 189, 192E(1)(a)
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): s 20(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): ss 11, 12

Cases cited: None recorded in the judgment.