Citation: Regina v Pintos [1999] NSWCCA 209
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 21 July 1999
Judge(s): Simpson J; Studdert J
Background
The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of aggravated armed robbery, committed on three separate occasions over the course of one week in June 1998. On each occasion he entered premises in Fairfield carrying a sawn-off single-barrel shotgun and demanded cash from attendants. On one occasion he fired a shot into a shelf fixture before leaving.
The sentencing judge, Ford ADCJ, imposed a total term of six years penal servitude on each charge, divided into a minimum period of four years and an additional term of two years, having found special circumstances justifying departure from the statutory ratio. The appellant, who appeared unrepresented in the Court of Criminal Appeal, sought leave to appeal the sentences.
The appellant's personal circumstances included a history of unemployment following marital separation, heroin addiction developed in that period, and the care of two teenage children. He attributed the offending to his need to fund his drug addiction. He also had a prior criminal history dating back to 1979, including firearms offences in 1995.
Legal Issues
- Whether the total sentence of six years penal servitude for each count of aggravated armed robbery was manifestly excessive.
- Whether the sentencing judge made any error in the exercise of sentencing discretion.
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal found no error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge. Ford ADCJ had accepted the appellant's expression of contrition as genuine, acknowledged his drug-related background and family circumstances, and taken into account mitigating personal factors including the appellant's involvement with a church community.
Simpson J, with whom Studdert J agreed, assessed the sentences against the guideline judgment in R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111. Her Honour observed that a sentence of six years for any single one of these offences would not have been excessive in the relevant category of armed robbery. The fact that three offences occurred in rapid succession made it impossible to characterise the sentences as outside the proper exercise of sentencing discretion.
The Court also noted that the single shot discharged during one of the robberies, which the appellant claimed was accidental, served only to underscore the serious danger inherent in using firearms during the commission of offences of this kind.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a six-year total sentence for aggravated armed robbery, where three offences were committed within one week using a loaded firearm, was a proper exercise of sentencing discretion.
- No error was established in the sentencing judge's approach, even where the appellant appeared unrepresented and the Court itself undertook a careful review of the remarks on sentence.
- Under s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, each aggravated armed robbery offence carried a maximum of 25 years penal servitude, making a six-year sentence well within the available range, particularly given the offending pattern.
- The guideline judgment in R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111 was applied as the relevant benchmark for assessing whether sentences for armed robbery were appropriate.
- An accidental discharge of a firearm during a robbery does not operate to reduce the seriousness of the offending; the Court treated it as reinforcing the grave danger associated with using firearms in such circumstances.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(2) (aggravated armed robbery; maximum penalty of 25 years penal servitude)
Cases:
- R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111 (guideline judgment for armed robbery sentencing)