Citation: R v Griffin [2015] NSWDC 304
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 June 2015
Judge: Judge S Norrish QC
Background
The offender, Nathan Griffin, appeared for sentencing on one charge of attempted robbery in company under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. A related offence of intentional damage to property in company was listed on a Form 1 to be taken into account at sentencing. The offending arose out of a group incident in which Griffin, despite being the eldest participant and the owner of the vehicle used, was found not to have been the primary instigator.
Evidence before the court, including reports from a psychiatrist (Dr Cassimatis) and material provided by an advocate from Action for People with Disabilities, established that Griffin had suffered from significant mental disorders and disabilities over a long period. His conditions made him susceptible to manipulation and peer influence, which contributed materially to his involvement in the offending.
Griffin entered a guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity, entitling him to a 25% discount on the otherwise appropriate sentence under the guideline judgment in R v Thomson and Houlton.
Legal Issues
- Whether a good behaviour bond was an appropriate sentence for an offence of attempted robbery in company, given the R v Henry guideline judgment for armed robbery offences
- How the offender's mental disabilities affected the various sentencing purposes, including moral culpability, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the weight of a custodial sentence
- Whether individualised justice, as a principle within the Henry guideline framework, justified a departure from the custodial norms ordinarily indicated by that guideline
- How the Form 1 matter (intentional damage to property in company) affected the sentence
Decision
Judge Norrish concluded that Griffin's mental health conditions were centrally relevant to the sentencing exercise, drawing on the principles summarised by McClellan CJ at CL in DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194. The court found that four of the five factors identified in that judgment applied: Griffin's moral culpability was reduced; the need for general denunciation was diminished; he was not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence; and a custodial sentence would weigh more heavily on him. The fifth factor, community danger requiring heightened specific deterrence, did not apply on the facts.
The court accepted that Griffin's conditions rendered him amenable to manipulation by younger peers, and that his participation in the offence stemmed in material part from a need to maintain acceptance within the group. His role was that of a follower rather than an organiser or instigator.
His Honour acknowledged the significance of the Henry guideline judgment but emphasised that it was a guideline, not a rigid rule. The Chief Justice in Henry had himself endorsed individualised justice, approving observations made in the earlier unreported decision of R v Lattouf that general principles must be adjusted to the individual case. The court found that this was precisely such a case.
On the Form 1 matter, the court determined that greater weight on personal deterrence was not required, given the contextual circumstances and the character of the Form 1 offending. The Community Corrections assessment, which noted Griffin's acknowledgment of the gravity of his conduct, his intention to engage with rehabilitation, and the support of his family, also informed the court's conclusion that a good behaviour bond was appropriate.
Orders Made
- Griffin was sentenced to a good behaviour bond (specific duration not reproduced in the available text)
- The bond conditions included:
- Being of good behaviour
- Complying with all reasonable directions of Community Corrections
- Engaging with medical and psychological treatment and counselling
- Reporting to the officer-in-charge at Community Corrections, Dee Why, within seven days of the order
Key Takeaways
- Where a mental disorder or disability contributes materially to an offence, a sentencing court may reduce the weight given to moral culpability, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the proportionality of a custodial term, even where the mental health condition does not rise to the level of a serious psychiatric illness.
- The R v Henry guideline for armed robbery offences does not operate as an absolute rule: the District Court confirmed that the guideline accommodates individualised justice in cases with sufficiently compelling personal circumstances.
- Susceptibility to peer manipulation arising from a mental disability can be recognised as a mitigating factor that reduces an offender's culpability for group offending, even where that offender is the eldest participant or provided the vehicle used in the offence.
- A Form 1 matter does not automatically increase the weight given to personal deterrence; the nature of the Form 1 offending and its relationship to the principal offence remain relevant considerations.
- The five-factor framework from DPP v De La Rosa provides a structured analytical tool for assessing how mental illness or disability bears on each dimension of sentencing, with the possibility that some factors may point toward leniency while others, such as ongoing danger to the community, could point the other way.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 195(1A)
Cases
- R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 (guideline: utilitarian value of guilty plea)
- Attorney General's Application No 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147 (guideline: Form 1 matters)
- R v Henry & Ors (1999) NSWCCA 111 (guideline: armed robbery sentencing)
- DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 (mental illness/disability in sentencing)
- R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA) (individualised justice)
- Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- R v KT [2008] NSWCCA 51
- R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
- R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
- Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108