AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 1 November 2024

R v Pagett; R v Williamson

[2024] NSWDC 623

Assault & violencePublic order & justice offences

Citation: [2024] NSWDC 623
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 November 2024
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ

Background

In August 2023, two young offenders, Mataja Pagett and Jayden Williamson, approached a transgender woman at North Wollongong Railway Station as part of a group who believed she had wronged one of their friends. When the complainant fled to a nearby service station, both offenders chased and caught her. Pagett punched her, spat on her, and forcibly marched her by the hair approximately one kilometre to a nearby unit.

At the unit, the offenders detained the complainant for just under three hours. Williamson tied her hands with zip ties and shoelaces, forced her to eat cat faeces under threat of violence, and tied her legs in the bathroom. Pagett directed others to cut the complainant's long hair very short, and the complainant was also kicked, struck with a vacuum cleaner pole, and had a frying pan held to her head. A hair straightener was turned on and threats were made to burn her genitals. Her hands were cut and photographs were taken of her.

Both Pagett and Williamson were arrested on 4 September 2023 and have remained in custody since. Each pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): taking and detaining a person without consent, in company, with the intention of committing a serious indictable offence (intimidation), and causing actual bodily harm at the time of detaining. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the offence, having regard to the nature and duration of the detention and the violence involved?
  • What discount applied for the early guilty plea and what was its utilitarian value?
  • What subjective factors were relevant to each offender's sentence, including age, Aboriginality, trauma history, mental health, drug addiction, and deprived background?
  • Whether special circumstances existed under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to vary the standard ratio between non-parole period and total sentence?
  • How should parity between co-offenders be maintained given their differing criminal histories and subjective circumstances?

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ assessed the offending as objectively particularly serious. Although the actual bodily harm element was at the low end of its range, the court emphasised that physical injury was not the dominant concern. The prolonged detention, repeated threats of serious violence, the deliberate humiliation of the complainant (including forced consumption of cat faeces and the cutting of her hair), and the use of numbers to intimidate combined to elevate the gravity of the offending significantly. The court accepted Williamson was not directly responsible for all physical violence but noted his active participation, including restraining the complainant and directing others.

Both offenders received a 25% reduction in their sentences to reflect the utilitarian value of their early guilty pleas. The court noted that the pleas also spared the complainant the additional distress of giving evidence at trial, and represented each offender's acceptance of legal and moral responsibility.

The court considered extensive subjective material for each offender. Both are Aboriginal and the court applied the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 in weighing their deprived and traumatic backgrounds. The judgment records that Pagett had experienced significant disadvantage, had drug dependency issues, and mental health concerns. Williamson, who had no prior criminal record, had family support and expressed genuine remorse. Pagett had a prior criminal record, which was treated as an aggravating factor. The court found significant special circumstances for both offenders, warranting a longer parole period than the standard ratio to allow for supervision, rehabilitation, and reintegration into the community.

The court sentenced each offender separately but applied a parity analysis, arriving at sentences of 3 years and 4 months (Pagett) and 3 years and 9 months (Williamson), with the higher sentence for Williamson reflecting the additional aggravating conduct of restraining the complainant and the cat faeces episode, notwithstanding his lack of a criminal record. Each sentence was backdated to commence on 4 September 2023.

Orders Made

Pagett:
- Total sentence: 3 years and 4 months imprisonment, commencing 4 September 2023
- Non-parole period: 1 year and 8 months, expiring 3 May 2025 (eligible for parole consideration from that date)
- Balance of term: 1 year and 8 months, commencing 4 May 2025 and expiring 3 January 2027

Williamson:
- Total sentence: 3 years and 9 months imprisonment, commencing 4 September 2023
- Non-parole period: 1 year and 11 months, expiring 3 August 2025 (eligible for parole consideration from that date)
- Balance of term: 1 year and 10 months, expiring 3 June 2027

Both offenders:
- Two backup matters under s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) were withdrawn and dismissed
- Reports of Dr Klamer and Ms Murray-Roach to be sent to Corrections with the warrants

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the court assessed objective seriousness by reference not only to the physical harm caused but to the cumulative effect of prolonged detention, psychological humiliation, and repeated threats, even where physical injury was at the lower end of the range.

  • A 25% discount for an early guilty plea in the Local Court was applied to both offenders, consistent with the principle that the discount recognises the utilitarian value of the plea and its role in sparing complainants the ordeal of trial.

  • The District Court applied Bugmy v The Queen in weighing the Aboriginality, childhood deprivation, and trauma histories of both offenders, treating these as relevant to moral culpability without diminishing the objective gravity of the offending.

  • Significant special circumstances were found for both offenders, resulting in non-parole periods that represent a lower proportion of the total sentence than the statutory norm. The court tied this finding to the need for extended supervision and rehabilitation support during the parole period.

  • Parity between co-offenders does not require identical sentences where their criminal records and roles in the offending differ. Williamson received a longer sentence than Pagett despite having no prior record, reflecting his specific conduct in restraining the complainant and the cat faeces episode.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 86(3)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases:
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
- Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
- Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40; (2013) 252 CLR 381
- Veen No 2 [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Afu v R [2017] NSWCCA 246
- Bell v R [2019] NSWCCA 271
- Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
- Lau v R [2010] NSWCCA 43
- Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
- Hearne v R [2001] NSWCCA 37
- DM v R [2005] NSWCCA 181
- R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
- Yardley v Betts (1