Citation: R v Natoli [2016] NSWDC 316
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 January 2016
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ
Background
The offender, Domenic Natoli, had previously served a substantial custodial sentence for a series of armed robberies committed in 2006. He was released to parole in 2013 but, within a relatively short period, committed a further series of serious offences while heavily using drugs and while his father was gravely ill.
The offences spanned several victims and locations. They included the armed robbery of a shopkeeper who was holding her five-month-old baby, a second armed robbery of the same shop, an attempted robbery of a taxi driver in which the driver suffered a laceration to his hand while grabbing the knife, and an aggravated theft from a homeless man at Central Railway Station involving an assault causing a wound requiring seven sutures. For that last offence, the offender had impersonated a police officer to gain the victim's compliance.
The matter came before the District Court for sentencing on multiple counts, with additional offences listed on Forms 1 (a procedural mechanism under New South Wales law that allows a court to take related offences into account in sentencing without imposing separate penalties for each).
Legal Issues
- What aggregate sentence was appropriate across multiple serious offences, including armed robbery, aggravated stealing, and causing wounding in circumstances of aggravation?
- How should the court weigh the offender's status as a parole breacher without double-counting that factor?
- What discount was appropriate for guilty pleas entered at different stages of proceedings?
- How did the guideline judgment in R v Henry apply given the particular aggravating and mitigating features of this case?
- What weight should be given to the offender's limited intellectual capacity, drug dependency, and traumatic childhood in mitigation?
Decision
Berman SC DCJ found the offences to be of considerable gravity. The robbery of Ms Patel was described as particularly serious given that the offender had observed her holding her five-month-old baby before returning to rob her at knifepoint. The attempted robbery of the taxi driver involved a sustained struggle and a wounding. The offence against the homeless man at Central Station, where the offender impersonated a police officer to gain compliance before assaulting the victim, demonstrated a calculated and predatory approach to a vulnerable target.
On the question of mitigation, the court accepted that the offender had a difficult upbringing marked by his father's violence, that his intellectual capacity was limited, and that these factors provided some context for his difficulties in expressing remorse and in complying with parole conditions. However, Berman SC DCJ found that the offender had very limited insight into his offending. Describing the robbery of a woman holding a baby as "silly or stupid," and writing a letter to the victims only shortly before sentencing that still sought to partially excuse his conduct, weighed against the sincerity of his expressed remorse.
The court addressed the parole issue carefully, noting the need to avoid double-counting: taking the breach of parole into account as an aggravating factor and, as a consequence, commencing the sentence from 6 June 2015 rather than the date of sentence. Guilty plea discounts were applied at approximately 25% for pleas entered in the Local Court and approximately 15% for pleas entered after committal for trial, reflecting the utilitarian value of those pleas as explained in R v Thomson and Houlton.
Comparing the case to the Henry guideline judgment, the court noted several departures from the standard scenario: the offender was not young, he had a significant prior criminal record, and one robbery involved a victim carrying an infant, a circumstance Henry never contemplated. In the offender's favour, the pleas were entered earlier than the late-stage plea assumed in the Henry benchmark.
Orders Made
- An aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of 6 years.
- The sentence was backdated to commence on 6 June 2015.
- The offender became eligible for release to parole on 5 June 2021.
- Additional offences were taken into account on Forms 1 and did not attract separate head sentences.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court applied the R v Henry guideline framework but departed from its standard scenario where the facts disclosed materially greater gravity, including a victim holding an infant and an offender with a substantial prior record of similar offending.
- Breach of parole is a recognised aggravating factor in sentencing, but courts must take care not to double-count it both by elevating the sentence and by commencing the sentence from the date of judgment rather than an earlier date.
- Guilty plea discounts are calibrated to the stage at which the plea is entered: approximately 25% for pleas in the Local Court and approximately 15% for pleas entered after committal for trial, consistent with the principles in R v Thomson and Houlton.
- Limited intellectual capacity and a traumatic childhood are relevant mitigating considerations, including when assessing an offender's ability to articulate remorse, but they do not override the objective seriousness of repeated, planned, weapon-based offending against vulnerable victims.
- Where multiple serious offences are before the court, an aggregate sentence may be imposed under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act rather than requiring the court to structure a series of cumulative or concurrent individual terms.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including s 21A (aggravating and mitigating factors) and the Forms 1 mechanism
Cases
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R (guideline judgment on armed robbery sentencing)
- R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 (guilty plea discounts)