AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 6 December 2024

R v Michie

[2024] NSWDC 652

DrugsTheft & propertyTraffic & driving
CRIME SENTENCING DRUG ADDICTION NUMEROUS PROPERTY CRIMES DISADVANTAGE DISGRACEFUL BREACH IN JUVENILE CUSTODY

Citation: R v Michie [2024] NSWDC 652
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 December 2024
Judge: Wass SC DCJ

Background

The offender, Mr Benjamin Michie, appeared for sentencing on a large volume of property offences committed between 21 January 2023 and 2 April 2023 across the Taree and surrounding areas of regional New South Wales. The offences included multiple break and enters of residential dwellings (some aggravated and in company), numerous instances of knowingly driving stolen motor vehicles, two police pursuits involving dangerous and reckless driving, and various related matters dealt with by certificate.

The court heard that Mr Michie committed these offences while in the grip of what the sentencing judge described as unchecked drug addiction. A psychiatric assessment by Dr Christopher Bench, dated 25 September 2024, was tendered and considered alongside the Crown sentencing bundle and submissions from both parties.

The offences ranged considerably in seriousness. They included a break and enter of a disability services centre (the Uniting NDIS Centre in Taree), residential burglaries in which gun safes were forced open and firearms stolen, and police pursuits during which Mr Michie drove at speeds of up to 80 kilometres per hour in 50 kilometre per hour zones.

  • What aggregate sentence and non-parole period was appropriate given the volume and nature of the offences?
  • How should the court weigh Mr Michie's serious drug addiction and personal disadvantage as mitigating factors against the objective seriousness of the offending?
  • What significance, if any, attached to the principles in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 regarding the relevance of background disadvantage in sentencing?
  • What orders and recommendations were appropriate to address Mr Michie's rehabilitation needs, including his drug addiction and mental health?

Decision

Her Honour Wass SC DCJ sentenced Mr Michie on the basis that his offending, while extensive, occurred within a defined period and was substantially driven by drug addiction. The catchwords flag that the court grappled with several contextual concerns: Mr Michie's personal disadvantage, what is described as a "disgraceful breach" during his time in juvenile custody, and the inappropriate labelling of entries in his criminal history records. The judgment also noted that insufficient rehabilitation services had been available to him.

The principles in Bugmy v R were engaged. That High Court decision confirms that a background of profound deprivation and disadvantage remains a relevant consideration in sentencing, and that its mitigating effect does not diminish simply because an offender has had prior contact with the criminal justice system.

Individual sentences were imposed for each matter and sequence. These were structured as an aggregate custodial term, with Community Correction Orders imposed for several less serious sequences rather than further imprisonment. The judge noted the aggregate approach and ensured that the totality of the sentence reflected the overall criminality without being crushing.

Her Honour concluded that the appropriate aggregate sentence was six years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and three months. Mr Michie became eligible to apply for parole on 3 June 2026. Recommendations were made for referral to the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre program and for drug, mental health counselling and treatment to be made available during his custodial term.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate term of imprisonment of six years and six months, commencing 31 March 2023 and expiring 30 September 2029.
  • Non-parole period of three years and three months; parole eligibility date of 3 June 2026.
  • Individual custodial terms imposed for each sequence across the five matters (ranging from two months to 24 months per sequence).
  • Community Correction Orders imposed for certain sequences (three years for one matter, two years for another), with conditions of good behaviour and compliance with Community Corrections directions.
  • Licence disqualification periods imposed for driving-related offences (including a two-year disqualification for the dangerous driving pursuit and a six-month disqualification for another sequence), all dating from the date of sentencing.
  • Convictions recorded for all custodial matters and matters attracting Community Correction Orders.
  • Section 10A disposals (conviction without further penalty) imposed for two sequences.
  • Recommendation for placement in the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre program.
  • Recommendation for drug addiction counselling and mental health treatment to be made available in custody.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court applied Bugmy v R to recognise that an offender's background of disadvantage retains genuine mitigating weight at sentencing, even where that offender has an existing criminal history.
  • Where a defined period of high-volume property offending is substantially driven by untreated drug addiction, the sentencing court may treat addiction as a significant contextual factor without excusing the criminality.
  • An aggregate sentencing approach was used to impose a coherent overall sentence across a large number of matters and sequences, reflecting totality without allowing the sheer volume of charges to produce a disproportionately crushing result.
  • Inappropriate labelling in criminal history records was identified as a matter of concern, suggesting courts will scrutinise the accuracy and fairness of how prior history is characterised when it is placed before them.
  • Insufficient access to rehabilitation services during earlier periods of custody was acknowledged as part of the sentencing context, and specific recommendations for drug treatment and mental health support were made alongside the custodial orders.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including ss 51B(1), 60(1AA), 111(1), 112(1)(a), 112(2), 154A(1)(b), 154A, 195(1A)
- Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW), s 4(1)(b)

Cases:
- Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 (High Court of Australia)