Citation: R v Trott & Robertson [2011] NSWDC 236
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 December 2011
Judge: Berman SC DCJ
Background
Two offenders, Robertson and Trott, pleaded guilty to robbery in company following a late-night incident in Hurstville. The pair had been out drinking to celebrate Robertson's birthday and were driving home when Robertson stopped the car to vomit in the gutter. A lone pedestrian, Sabkota, happened to be walking past after alighting from the train.
Robertson approached Sabkota, demanded his mobile phone, and when Sabkota attempted to flee, chased him, knocked him to the ground, and continued to punch him while he lay there. Trott then exited the vehicle and, when Sabkota called out to him hoping for assistance, punched Sabkota in the head, face, and shoulder. Robertson took Sabkota's mobile phone, and one of the pair demanded his wallet, which was empty. Police later located the mobile phone inside the car by ringing Sabkota's number and hearing it ring.
The Crown accepted pleas to one count each of robbery in company as full satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Both offenders appeared before the District Court for sentencing.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each offender given the objective seriousness of robbery in company involving sustained violence?
- To what extent did each offender's criminal history, personal circumstances, and prospects for rehabilitation affect the sentencing outcome?
- Whether the sentences could be served by way of intensive correction orders rather than full-time imprisonment.
Decision
Berman SC DCJ described the offence as a serious breach of the peace as well as a direct act of violence against the victim. His Honour drew on the principle articulated by Gleeson CJ in R v Ranse (1994) that street robberies of this kind harm not only their immediate victims but the broader community, whose freedom of movement and sense of safety is diminished. The court expressed the view that all members of the community should be entitled to walk home alone at night without fear, and that offences of this character are among the most serious.
Regarding Trott, the court noted a significant prior record, including earlier robberies and an assault, and the fact that he committed this offence while on both parole and probation. His Honour was critical of the lenient treatment Trott had received in prior proceedings, concluding that it had likely reinforced his willingness to reoffend. However, the court acknowledged a genuine possibility of rehabilitation: Trott had spent approximately two months in adult custody, which the court found had a demonstrably sobering effect on him. He had since maintained employment as a carpentry apprentice, abstained from alcohol, and complied with strict bail conditions including a curfew.
Robertson presented a less serious criminal history. The court noted he had shown early remorse and his involvement, while clearly violent, did not include the additional dimension of having actively breached conditional liberty at the time of offending. His Honour imposed a shorter sentence of eighteen months.
The court determined that no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate for either offender, but found the sentences fell within the range eligible for consideration as intensive correction orders (ICOs). Both offenders were referred for assessment as to their suitability.
Orders Made
- Robertson sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, referred for assessment for an intensive correction order.
- Trott sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, referred for assessment for an intensive correction order; if found unsuitable for an ICO and ineligible for home detention, a full-time custodial sentence would follow.
- Both offenders granted bail on existing terms pending assessment.
- Matter adjourned to 17 February 2012 at 2pm for final sentencing upon receipt of assessment.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that robbery in company committed against a lone pedestrian on a public street engages not only the interests of the direct victim but broader community interests in public safety and freedom of movement.
- Citing R v Ranse, the court applied the principle that street violence of this kind constitutes a significant breach of the peace warranting serious condemnation, independent of the harm to the individual victim.
- Prior lenient sentencing was identified by the court as a factor that may have compounded Trott's pattern of offending, by creating an expectation that serious offences would attract only minor consequences.
- A relatively short period served in adult custody, combined with sustained post-offence rehabilitation, can weigh meaningfully in favour of a non-custodial method of serving an otherwise inevitable prison term.
- Both sentences were structured so that unsuitability for an ICO could result in the offenders serving their terms in full-time imprisonment, a contingency the court explicitly flagged to the offenders at the conclusion of proceedings.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- R v Ranse (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 August 1994) per Gleeson CJ, on the breach-of-the-peace dimension of street robbery offences.
Legislation:
- No specific legislation was cited in the judgment text. References to intensive correction orders and home detention reflect provisions of the sentencing framework applicable in New South Wales at the time of the decision.