AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 December 2010

R v Ravet, Shane

[2010] NSWDC 305

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL BREAK, ENTER AND STEAL FORM 1 ROBBERY

Citation: R v Ravet, Shane [2010] NSWDC 305
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 December 2010
Judge(s): Nicholson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 38-year-old man with an extensive criminal history, faced sentencing for two separate offences committed in 2008 and 2009. The first was a robbery of a clothing store in the Sydney CBD, in which he confronted two female shop assistants while attempting to force open a cash register. The second was a break, enter and steal at a tobacconist store in a Hurstville shopping mall, committed just 37 days after his release from custody.

At the time of the robbery, the offender was on parole for similar offences. A Form 1 matter (a further break and enter at a separate shopping mall store, from which $245 in cash was stolen) was also taken into account on sentencing for the break and enter charge. The offender had spent approximately 16.5 of the preceding 20 years in custody, with his longest uninterrupted period of liberty being under five months.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on the break and enter charge, resulting in a guilty verdict. The offender pleaded guilty to the robbery charge, having offered to do so approximately three months before the plea was formally entered.

  • What were the objective facts of each offence, consistent with the jury's verdict and agreed statement of facts?
  • Whether the robbery involved violence, given a defence submission that it did not
  • What weight should be given to subjective factors, including severe drug dependency and a deeply entrenched criminal history, against the primary sentencing imperative of community protection
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying an adjustment to the standard ratio between non-parole period and balance of term
  • How the sentences should be accumulated given the offences were committed 11 months apart, with the first occurring while the offender was on parole
  • Whether the offender should be referred to the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program

Decision

Nicholson SC DCJ rejected the defence submission that the robbery involved no violence. The court found that the offender's aggressive verbal demands directed at two shop assistants, causing them genuine fear, constituted sufficient coercive conduct to meet the relevant threshold. The court treated the robbery as falling within the middle range of objective seriousness.

On subjective matters, the court acknowledged the offender's serious heroin dependency as a significant factor underlying his offending. However, given his extreme recidivism, the court found his rehabilitation prospects to be bleak and noted he had become deeply institutionalised and entrenched within an antisocial culture. The court observed that the offender appeared to have begun a belated process of maturation, and accepted psychological evidence that structured supervision and case management upon release would be necessary.

Special circumstances were found to exist, principally because of the offender's long history of incarceration and his need for intensive supervision and support upon re-entry into the community. The court also noted that the accumulation of sentences itself provided a basis for the finding. Given the gap between the two offences and the fact that the first was committed while on parole, the court imposed a substantial degree of accumulation between the two sentences.

Community protection was treated as the primary sentencing consideration, consistent with the authorities cited. The court also referred the offender to the Drug Court for assessment of eligibility for the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program, and directed that sentencing remarks be forwarded to the Classification Committee to consider appropriate programs should that referral be unsuccessful.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a non-parole period of 20 months commencing 29 April 2009, with a balance of term expiring 18 September 2012.
  • The offender was convicted of break, enter and steal (with the Form 1 matter taken into account) and sentenced to a non-parole period of 20 months commencing 17 December 2010, with a balance of term expiring 15 April 2014.
  • The offender was referred to the Drug Court for assessment of eligibility and suitability for the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program.
  • The sentencing remarks were ordered to be provided to the Classification Committee for consideration of appropriate special needs programs, including the possibility of release on licence to a full-time rehabilitation centre if the drug treatment program did not accept the offender.

Key Takeaways

  • Community protection was confirmed as the primary sentencing imperative in this District Court decision, with rehabilitation and other considerations weighed against that overriding purpose, following R v Cuthbert, R v Rushby and R v Hayes.
  • A defence submission that verbal aggression alone did not constitute violence in the context of a robbery was rejected: the court found that threatening demands causing genuine fear in the victims satisfied the relevant threshold.
  • Where an offender commits a further offence while on parole, substantial accumulation of sentences is required rather than significant concurrency.
  • Special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard non-parole to balance-of-term ratio can arise from the combination of extreme institutionalisation, a long custodial history, and the demonstrated need for intensive post-release supervision.
  • Referral to the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program remains available even where rehabilitation prospects are assessed as bleak, and courts may simultaneously direct referral to the Classification Committee as a contingency measure.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Cases:
- R v Cuthbert [1967] 2 NSWR 329
- R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 597
- R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
- The Queen v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688

Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the text provided, though the decision references the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program and associated Drug Court processes under the relevant New South Wales statutory framework.