AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 14 December 1999

R v RPA

[1999] NSWSC 1222

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyPublic order & justice offences

Citation: R v RPA [1999] NSWSC 1222
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 14 December 1999
Judge(s): Barr J

Background

The prisoner, referred to by his initials RPA, was a young man born in New Zealand in October 1980 who had moved to Australia in early childhood. He faced sentencing for two groups of serious offences. The first group arose from a violent home robbery at Marrickville on 9 March 1998, in which RPA and six others robbed and assaulted two victims; a co-offender found a knife during the attack and used it to stab two people, one fatally. RPA was not implicated in the stabbing, and the Crown did not suggest he personally caused those injuries.

The second group arose while RPA was on conditional bail. Between February and March 1999, he participated in a series of armed robberies targeting real estate offices across Sydney's south-western suburbs, carried out in company with two or three associates and typically involving a knife.

RPA pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to two counts from the first group and five counts from the second, and asked the court to take into account eleven further offences under s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

  • What sentences were appropriate for the two Marrickville robbery offences, given that RPA was a child at the time and the matter fell under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act?
  • What sentences were appropriate for the five armed robberies committed while on bail?
  • How should the sentences across both groups be accumulated to produce a just overall outcome?
  • What weight should be given to RPA's age, personal background, drug dependence, guilty pleas, and prospects of rehabilitation?

Decision

Barr J treated the two groups of offences separately because RPA was a child when he committed the Marrickville offences in March 1998, bringing those matters within Division 4, Part 3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. Fixed-term control orders were imposed for those offences rather than sentences of penal servitude, with the terms backdated to commence from the date of RPA's initial arrest.

For the second group of offences, the judge imposed sentences of penal servitude comprising minimum and additional terms. The judge noted that the second group was more serious in character because RPA was the principal organiser and the offences were premeditated and planned, in contrast to the spontaneous nature of the Marrickville robbery.

The judge acknowledged RPA's difficult background, including a harsh home environment, early departure from school, drug dependency, and the influence of peer associations. Some, though not complete, remorse was accepted. The judge also recognised RPA's genuine desire to address his problems, reflected in his guilty pleas.

In structuring the accumulation of sentences, the judge deliberately produced an overall effective sentence somewhat lower than a simple aggregation of each group would have produced. An extended parole eligibility period was also built in to reflect both the accumulation and the need for supervision on release.

Orders Made

  • For the robbery with corporal violence of Toan Van Doan and the robbery with corporal violence of Cong Hai Nguyen (Marrickville, 9 March 1998): two fixed-term control orders each of one year and three months, taken to have commenced 1 April 1998 and expired 30 June 1999.
  • For the robbery in company of LJ Hooker Pty Limited (Yagoona, 13 February 1999): six years penal servitude, comprising a minimum term of three years six months (commencing 1 July 1999, expiring 31 December 2002) and an additional term of two years six months (commencing 1 January 2003, expiring 30 June 2005); eligible for parole 31 December 2002. Eleven additional matters taken into account under s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
  • For each of the four remaining robberies (Peakhurst, Beverly Hills, Chester Hill, and Berala, February 1999): five years penal servitude each, comprising a minimum term of three years six months (commencing 1 July 1999, expiring 31 December 2002) and an additional term of one year six months (commencing 1 January 2003, expiring 30 June 2004).

Key Takeaways

  • Where an offender was a child at the time of certain offences but an adult at sentencing, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act governed the form of order for those earlier offences, resulting in fixed-term control orders rather than penal servitude sentences.
  • A co-offender's spontaneous and unforeseeable use of a weapon during a group robbery did not, on the facts here, render the other participants responsible for the injuries that weapon caused.
  • Offences committed while on bail for serious matters were treated as an aggravating factor, particularly where the subsequent offending was planned and the prisoner took an organising role.
  • Accumulation of sentences across two distinct groups of offending can be moderated to produce a just overall term, with the sentencing court building in a longer parole eligibility period to reflect that moderation.
  • Factors including youth, drug dependency, difficult upbringing, genuine prospects of rehabilitation, and guilty pleas were weighed in mitigation, though they did not displace the need for substantial custodial sentences given the gravity and number of the offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 21 (taking additional offences into account on sentence)
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act (NSW), Division 4, Part 3 (sentencing of children)
- Children (Detention Centres) Act (NSW) (governing control orders)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the provided text.