AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 May 2019

R v Raymonde; R v Raymonde

[2019] NSWDC 355

Assault & violenceFraud & dishonestyPublic order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE S166 JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE INTENT TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE ASSAULT

Citation: R v Raymonde; R v Raymonde [2019] NSWDC 355
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 May 2019
Judge: Hunt DCJ

Background

Two offenders, a mother and her adult daughter, were sentenced for their roles in a serious joint criminal enterprise involving the unlawful detention of a vulnerable woman. The victim had previously been in a domestic relationship with the mother offender and suffered from a mild to moderate intellectual disability. The detention was pre-planned and carried out with the intention of extracting financial advantage from the victim, including the forced transfer of her vehicle and access to her bank account.

The offending occurred over several days in August 2017. The victim was physically assaulted by a co-offender, bound, locked in a car boot, and transported to the premises where both offenders were living. Once there, the two offenders concealed her from police, dyed her hair to disguise her appearance, and falsely denied knowledge of her whereabouts. The victim was ultimately arrested on an unrelated matter before police discovered what had happened.

The daughter faced additional charges arising from a separate and earlier course of offending, including entering premises and damaging property, and using a carriage service to menace. She also arranged for the car used in the detention to be destroyed.

  • What sentences were appropriate for the principal offence of specially aggravated detention in company with intent to obtain a financial advantage, occasioning actual bodily harm, under section 86(3) of the Crimes Act?
  • What utilitarian discount applied to each offender's guilty pleas, given the timing of those pleas and the circumstances surrounding them?
  • Whether the daughter was entitled to an additional sentencing discount for cooperation with authorities (including giving evidence in a related special hearing)?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard ratio between head sentence and non-parole period in the daughter's case?
  • What individual and aggregate sentences were appropriate for the daughter's additional offences, including armed with intent, damage to property, and entering land with intent?

Decision

Hunt DCJ found that full-time imprisonment was inevitable for both offenders, with sentences to commence from 21 December 2017, the date each offender entered custody. The court applied a 25% utilitarian discount to both offenders for the principal detention offence, reflecting their early guilty pleas.

For the daughter's additional earlier offences, the court applied a 15% utilitarian discount for the guilty plea entered in the District Court. A further 25% reduction was granted in recognition of her cooperation with authorities, specifically for giving evidence in the special hearing involving a co-accused who was unfit to stand trial. This produced a total discount of 40% on those matters.

The court found special circumstances in the daughter's case, based on her youth, the fact that this was her first period of full-time imprisonment, and her need for community support. This justified extending the ratio of the parole period relative to the head sentence beyond the statutory default, providing a longer period of supervised parole for the daughter than for her mother.

The mother received a head sentence of two years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years. The daughter received a head sentence of four years and three months, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. The sentences were structured so that both offenders would become eligible for parole consideration at the same date, 20 September 2020, though the daughter's parole period extends six months beyond her mother's.

Orders Made

Carol Anne Raymonde (mother):
- Convicted of specially aggravated detention in company with intent to obtain a financial advantage, contrary to section 86(3) of the Crimes Act
- Head sentence: 2 years and 9 months, commencing 21 December 2017
- Non-parole period: 2 years (earliest release date: 21 December 2019)

Yvonne Raymonde (daughter):
- Convicted of specially aggravated detention in company with intent to obtain a financial advantage, and multiple additional offences (armed with intent on two counts, damage property on two counts, enter land with intent to commit an indictable offence, and carriage service offences)
- Head sentence: 4 years and 3 months, commencing 21 December 2017, expiring 20 March 2022
- Non-parole period: 2 years and 9 months (earliest release date: 20 September 2020)
- Special circumstances found, adjusting the statutory non-parole period ratio
- Two fixed terms of 2 months each for the section 166 carriage service matters, commencing 24 April 2017 and expiring 23 June 2017

Key Takeaways

  • Under section 86(3) of the Crimes Act, specially aggravated detention in company carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period, requiring the sentencing court to use the maximum as a benchmark or yardstick.
  • A 25% utilitarian discount was available for early guilty pleas to the principal detention offence; a lesser discount of 15% applied where guilty pleas to other counts were not entered until the matter was listed for trial, even where an earlier indication of a likely plea had been given.
  • Substantial cooperation with authorities, including giving evidence in a special hearing involving an unfit co-accused, can attract a significant additional sentencing discount, in this case a further 25% reduction on top of the utilitarian discount.
  • Special circumstances justifying an adjusted non-parole period ratio may be found where an offender is young, has no prior experience of full-time imprisonment, and requires extended post-release supervision and support.
  • The District Court structured concurrent parole eligibility dates for co-offenders serving different sentence lengths, using the extended parole period for the daughter as a mechanism to provide ongoing community supervision beyond her mother's release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): sections 86(3), 114(1)(a), 114(1)(d), 166, 195(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
- DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 A Crim R 1; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1