Citation: R v Mark Chambers; R v Raynor Earnshaw [2019] NSWDC 848
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 November 2019
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ
Background
Two offenders, Mark Chambers and Raynor Earnshaw, appeared for sentencing following early guilty pleas to specially aggravated take and detain with intent to intimidate, contrary to s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence was aggravated because it was committed in company and caused actual bodily harm to the victim. Chambers also faced a separate charge of intentionally destroying property by fire under s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.
The offending occurred on 26 April 2018. The victim was lured into a car under false pretences, whereupon Chambers confronted him over a perceived grievance, punched him, and forced him into the car boot with Earnshaw's assistance. During the detention, which lasted approximately half an hour, a weapon resembling a machete was passed through the parcel shelf into the boot, cutting the victim's fingers as he tried to defend himself. The victim ultimately escaped by jumping from the moving vehicle, sustaining lacerations, bruising, and grazes.
Chambers subsequently burned the car used in the offence in a public park near his home, apparently to destroy evidence. Earnshaw had sent a text message in the early hours after the offending suggesting the car be disposed of. The victim read a Victim Impact Statement at sentencing, describing lasting physical and psychological harm from the incident.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for each offender, given their materially different roles in the offence?
- How should the 25% discount for early guilty pleas be applied without reducing sentencing to a purely arithmetical exercise?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of sentence.
- How the court should weigh mitigating personal circumstances, including difficult upbringings and drug use, against the objective seriousness of the offending.
- Whether Earnshaw's sentence, which fell below two years, should be served by way of Intensive Correction Order rather than full-time custody.
Decision
Haesler SC DCJ noted a clear distinction in the roles played by each offender. Chambers was the instigator: he planned the confrontation, used a chokehold on the victim, directed the use of the weapon, encouraged further assault, and later burned the car to conceal the crime. Earnshaw's role, while still serious, was more limited; the prosecution conceded it could not prove his involvement extended beyond assisting to place the victim in the boot. The court was nonetheless satisfied that both participated in a serious offence warranting custodial sentences.
The court acknowledged a compelling body of mitigating material for both offenders, including difficult personal histories, unstable lives, and drug use. His Honour observed that courts must take such matters into account, consistent with the principles stated in Bugmy v The Queen and Munda v Western Australia, while not allowing them to overwhelm the need for proportionate punishment. His Honour also noted that, despite this mitigating material, neither offender appeared to fully appreciate the gravity of what they had done.
General deterrence was identified as a relevant consideration given the maximum penalty of 25 years for the principal offence, though his Honour observed that the absence of premeditated planning suggested neither offender had turned their mind to the consequences. The level of planning, while sufficient to constitute an aggravating factor, was found to sit at the very bottom of the range. Special circumstances were found to apply for both offenders to provide for structured parole and access to rehabilitative programs on release.
The court declined to impose an Intensive Correction Order for Earnshaw, finding he was not sufficiently ready or willing to engage with such a program at this stage. A period of full-time custody was considered necessary to reflect the objective seriousness of his role.
Orders Made
Raynor Earnshaw
- Convicted of specially aggravated take and detain (s 86(3), Crimes Act 1900)
- Sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, commencing 14 August 2019
- Non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month; eligible for release to parole on 13 September 2020
- Balance of term (9 months) to expire 14 June 2021
- Special circumstances found
Mark Chambers
- Convicted of specially aggravated take and detain (s 86(3), Crimes Act 1900) and intentionally destroying property by fire (s 195(1)(b), Crimes Act 1900)
- Indicated sentence of 3 years and 9 months for the principal offence; 5 months for the property damage offence
- Aggregate sentence of 4 years imprisonment, commencing 6 February 2019
- Non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months; eligible for release to parole on 5 August 2021
- Balance of term (1 year and 6 months) to expire 5 February 2023
- Special circumstances found
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that where co-offenders have materially different levels of participation, sentences must reflect those differences, even when the charges are identical.
- An early guilty plea attracted a 25% discount in both cases, with the court noting that sentencing should not be reduced to a strictly arithmetical exercise and that pleas can also demonstrate remorse.
- Under the principles in Bugmy v The Queen, difficult personal histories and disadvantaged backgrounds remain relevant to sentencing but do not override the requirement for sentences proportionate to the objective gravity of the offending.
- Special circumstances were justified in both cases by the need to extend the parole period to facilitate rehabilitation programs, particularly where the offenders were assessed as needing structured support to reintegrate into the community.
- A sentence of under two years did not automatically attract an Intensive Correction Order: where the court was not satisfied the offender was ready to engage meaningfully with such a program, full-time custody remained appropriate.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 86(3), 195(1)(b)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465