Citation: Centofanti & Schaeffer v R [2001] NSWCCA 107
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 26 March 2001
Judge(s): Smart AJ; Greg James J
Background
Two co-offenders pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery while armed with loaded shotguns at a club in Griffith, New South Wales, in September 1999. Schaeffer, the dominant participant and uncle of Centofanti, had planned both the original break-and-enter (which yielded nothing) and the subsequent armed robbery. Centofanti was initially reluctant but was drawn into the enterprise by his uncle, upon whom he depended and whom he trusted.
During the robbery, three staff members were rounded up at gunpoint, forced into toilets, and subjected to sustained terror while the offenders searched for cash. Only $280 was stolen. Both men were driven by drug addiction at the time, both made full admissions on arrest, and both pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, expressing genuine remorse.
In the District Court, Freeman DCJ sentenced Schaeffer to a fixed term of two years and six months for the break-and-enter, cumulative with a minimum term of four years and an additional term of two years and three months for the armed robbery. Centofanti received a minimum term of three years and nine months with an additional term of two years and three months for the robbery. Both men sought leave to appeal against the severity of their sentences.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentences imposed on each offender were manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
- Whether the principle of parity required a greater differentiation between the minimum terms of Schaeffer and Centofanti, given their significantly different levels of culpability.
- Whether the principle of totality had been properly applied in reducing Schaeffer's individual sentences to account for the cumulative effect of two terms.
- Whether the case engaged the Ellis principle (a discount for voluntary disclosure of offending that would otherwise not have come to light) or a discount for assistance to authorities.
Decision
The Court granted leave to appeal in both cases. On Schaeffer's appeal, leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed: the Court accepted that the principle of totality had been a legitimate reason for imposing somewhat reduced individual sentences on Schaeffer, and that the overall sentencing outcome was not shown to be in error.
On Centofanti's appeal, the Court found that an error had been demonstrated. Although the head sentence of six years was characterised as correct and beyond challenge, the minimum term of three years and nine months was too close to Schaeffer's minimum term of four years given the material differences between the two men. Schaeffer was the organiser and dominant participant who had manipulated a younger man dependent on him. Centofanti said nothing during the robbery, held the gun only to prevent intervention, and was an acolyte rather than a co-equal.
The Court also found that Centofanti's criminal record was comparatively better than Schaeffer's, that he was a young man facing his first custodial sentence, and that good rehabilitation prospects existed, though he would need prolonged supervision and support. These factors, taken together, warranted a finding of special circumstances justifying a shorter non-parole period relative to the total sentence. The Ellis principle and a discount for assistance were both rejected on the facts.
Orders Made
- Schaeffer: leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Centofanti: leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence quashed.
- In lieu of the sentence quashed, Centofanti was sentenced to six years' imprisonment commencing 30 November 1999, with a non-parole period of three years commencing that date and ending 29 November 2002.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that parity between co-offenders requires sentences to reflect meaningful differences in culpability, not merely token distinctions, particularly where one offender was the instigator and the other was led into the offence.
- Where the principle of totality justifies reducing individual sentences for a dominant co-offender who faces multiple cumulative terms, that reduction cannot obscure the need for the less culpable co-offender's non-parole period to sit visibly lower.
- A defendant's admission made only after learning that a co-offender had been arrested and charged does not attract an Ellis discount, which applies only where the offending would not otherwise have been discovered and proven.
- Special circumstances justifying a longer additional term (and thus a shorter non-parole period relative to head sentence) were established where the offender was young, serving a first custodial sentence, and required extended post-release supervision and family support for rehabilitation.
- The six-year head sentence for armed robbery of this character, involving loaded firearms, the terrorising of multiple victims, and sustained coercion, was treated as entirely appropriate and not open to challenge on appeal.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases cited:
- R v Henry (1998-9) 46 NSWLR 346
- R v Itamua [2000] NSWCCA 502
- R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 (discussed but not followed on the facts)
Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment.