Citation: Ross Aaron Robinson v R [2001] NSWCCA 180
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 8 March 2001
Judge(s): Meagher JA, Hulme J, Smart AJ
Background
The appellant was convicted of murder and ten counts of armed robbery arising from a planned robbery of a computer store in Penshurst, shortly before Christmas. The appellant and two accomplices arrived armed, disguised, and on modified motorbikes. During the robbery, the store manager attempted to trap the appellant in the basement by dropping a heavy metal grate across a stairwell, striking him. When the manager followed him down the stairs and came within close range, the appellant shot him twice. The manager died before assistance arrived.
The appellant had been sentenced in the District Court by Hidden J to twenty years penal servitude, with a minimum term of fifteen years and an additional term of five years. The sentence covered not only the murder but also the armed robbery charges, including a separate armed robbery committed one week earlier.
The appellant sought leave to appeal against that sentence on three grounds: that insufficient credit was given for his guilty plea, that the sentence was excessive given the sentencing judge's finding of no intent to kill, and that special circumstances warranted a shorter minimum term.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentencing judge gave adequate weight to the appellant's guilty plea
- Whether a finding of no specific intent to kill (that is, a case of "felony murder," where death results during the commission of another serious offence) justified a lesser sentence than murder involving a premeditated intention to kill
- Whether special circumstances existed warranting an adjustment to the ratio between the minimum and additional terms of the sentence
Decision
On the guilty plea ground, Meagher JA found the submission unattractive. The plea had not been entered out of genuine contrition: the appellant had divided the stolen proceeds with his accomplices rather than returning them, and the plea was entered only after the court ruled that his recorded confession was admissible. His Honour concluded this was simply bowing to the inevitable, and no meaningful moral credit attached to it.
On the intent to kill ground, the Court applied its own earlier decision in R v Mills (unreported, NSW CCA, 03/04/95), which rejected the proposition that felony murder carries a lower level of culpability than murder with a premeditated intent to kill. Meagher JA reasoned that the appellant's act of carrying a loaded revolver into the robbery carried an inherent acknowledgment that it might be used. Whether or not there was a formed intention to kill at the outset, the objective criminality was effectively the same.
On special circumstances, the Court clarified that such a finding does not operate to reduce the minimum term itself. Rather, it only enlivens a discretion to adjust the usual one-to-three ratio between the additional and minimum terms. The sentencing judge had exercised that discretion, and no error in its exercise was demonstrated.
Hulme J added that it was wrong to compare the sentence to statistics for murder cases alone, given that the sentence reflected the totality of the appellant's offending, including nine concurrent armed robbery charges and the separate earlier robbery.
Orders Made
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a guilty plea entered only after an adverse admissibility ruling on a confession carries little or no moral weight as a mitigating factor.
- Under the principle affirmed in R v Mills, felony murder and murder with a premeditated intention to kill do not attract meaningfully different levels of objective culpability for sentencing purposes.
- Carrying a loaded weapon into an armed robbery was treated as conduct demonstrating at minimum a reckless willingness to use lethal force, effectively negating any argument for leniency based on absent intent.
- A finding of special circumstances does not reduce the minimum term of a sentence. It only opens a discretion to depart from the standard ratio between minimum and additional terms, and that discretion remains with the sentencing judge.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court emphasised that sentences imposed for multiple concurrent serious offences should not be assessed by comparison with sentencing statistics for a single charge of murder alone.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- R v Mills (unreported, NSW CCA, 03/04/95)
Legislation:
No specific legislation was cited in the judgment text provided.