AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 4 February 2015

R v Taskin

[2015] NSWDC 61

Theft & propertyFirearms & weapons
CRIMINAL SENTENCE

Citation: R v Taskin [2015] NSWDC 61
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 4 February 2015
Judge(s): Judge S Norrish QC

Background

The offender appeared for sentence on two indictable offences committed in the early hours of 7 August 2013: demanding property in company with menaces (contrary to s 99(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, maximum 14 years) and robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon (contrary to s 97(1), maximum 20 years). A third, related matter involving possession of a small quantity of cannabis (less than a gram, consistent with personal use) was dealt with by way of a s 166 Certificate from the Local Court.

The offender was co-accused with a man referred to as Mr Chaker, whom the same judge had sentenced on 18 December 2014. The two matters were dealt with separately because the offender had been residing at Odyssey House and was not ready to proceed when Mr Chaker's matter was finalised. The offender was approximately 20 years older than his co-accused.

The offender pleaded guilty to the armed robbery in the Local Court and was committed for sentence, but was committed for trial on the demand property with menaces charge. He ultimately pleaded guilty to that charge on arraignment in the District Court.

  • What sentence was appropriate having regard to the offender's role compared with that of the co-accused, including relative moral culpability within the joint criminal enterprise?
  • What discount applied to the plea of guilty entered on arraignment for the demand with menaces offence, and what discount applied to the earlier guilty plea for the armed robbery?
  • How should the offender's mental illness, drug dependency, and time spent at Odyssey House be weighed as subjective factors?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify a greater than usual balance of sentence (that is, the portion served after release on parole).

Decision

Judge Norrish conducted a comparative analysis of the two co-offenders. The facts showed that Mr Chaker had played the leading role in executing both offences, making demands and attending the ATM, while the offender more often stood by silently. The judge found there was some slight difference in moral culpability for the demand with menaces offence, and greater culpability on Mr Chaker's part for the armed robbery. At the same time, Mr Chaker had been on parole for an armed robbery at the time of the offending, while the offender had no prior convictions for similar offences, though he was on bail for unrelated matters.

On the guilty plea discounts, the judge applied a 15% discount to the demand with menaces matter, consistent with the discount available for a plea entered on arraignment under the principles in R v Thomson and Houlton. The armed robbery plea, entered earlier in the Local Court, attracted a higher discount. The judge noted that the plea discount differential had no effective disadvantage for the offender given the overall sentence structure.

The offender's long-standing mental illness and history of drug dependency were treated as relevant subjective factors. The judge accepted that when properly medicated and abstaining from cannabis and amphetamine-type substances, the offender was capable of a largely law-abiding life. However, the judge remained circumspect about rehabilitation prospects given the interaction between mental illness and substance use. Special circumstances were found in each sentence to allow for a longer than usual period on parole, recognising the need for extended supervision and support in the community.

The resulting sentences were structured so that the armed robbery term commenced partway through the demand with menaces term, producing an effective total sentence with a non-parole period expiring on 16 November 2015. This was a somewhat less severe outcome than that imposed on Mr Chaker, reflecting the differences in role and the absence of prior similar offending.

Orders Made

  • Demand property with menaces: convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months (from 17 February 2014, expiring 16 February 2015) and a balance of sentence of 1 year and 10 months (expiring 16 December 2016).
  • Armed robbery: convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months (from 17 August 2014, expiring 16 November 2015) and a balance of sentence of 2 years and 3 months (expiring 16 February 2018).
  • Possession of cannabis: convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment (from 17 February 2014, expiring 16 March 2014), concurrent with the other sentences.
  • The seized cannabis was ordered to be destroyed.

Key Takeaways

  • Within a joint criminal enterprise, relative moral culpability remains a distinct sentencing consideration. The District Court found a meaningful difference between the offender and his co-accused based on who actually executed the offences, even though both were equally liable in law.
  • A plea of guilty entered on arraignment in the District Court attracted a 15% discount under the Thomson and Houlton principles, compared with the higher discount available for an earlier Local Court plea.
  • Where an offender has both a mental illness and a history of drug dependency, those factors can support a finding of special circumstances, justifying a longer post-release supervision period even where rehabilitation prospects are assessed as uncertain.
  • Comparing sentences imposed on co-accused is a legitimate part of the sentencing exercise, but differences in criminal history, parole status at the time of offending, and plea timing can justify different outcomes even for participants in the same offences.
  • Imposing a short concurrent term of imprisonment, rather than a fine, can be appropriate for a minor drug possession offence where the offender is already subject to a substantial custodial sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 99(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 166

Cases
- R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
- Browne v R [2013] NSWCCA 44
- Cicekdag v R [2007] NSWCCA 218
- Clay v R [2007] NSWCCA 106
- DPP (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
- R v Lattouf (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1996)
- Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
- R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
- R v Renshaw [2012] NSWCCA 91