AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 10 February 2017

R v Farmer

[2017] NSWDC 22

Assault & violenceDrugsTheft & property
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY IN COMPANY ONGOING DRUG SUPPLY

Citation: R v Farmer [2017] NSWDC 22
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 February 2017
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender, aged 18 at the time of the offences and 21 at sentencing, appeared for sentence on two serious charges: attempted armed robbery in company and ongoing supply of methylamphetamine. The offences occurred in 2014 and were separated in nature, involving very different criminal conduct.

The attempted armed robbery took place at a hotel in Medowie late one evening. The offender and an associate entered wearing balaclavas. The associate carried a pistol; the offender carried a machete. Bar staff refused to cooperate with the demand for cash, and both offenders left empty-handed without escalating the confrontation. A third person waited outside as a getaway driver.

The drug supply offences were uncovered through telephone intercepts. Over several weeks in April and May 2014, the offender arranged to buy and sell small quantities of methylamphetamine (ice). He was arrested in early May 2014 and had spent a substantial period in pre-sentence custody by the time the matter came before the court.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for two serious but distinct offences committed by a young, first-time offender?
  • To what extent did the offender's youth, background, and prospects of rehabilitation operate as mitigating factors?
  • What discount applied to the sentences given the timing of the guilty pleas?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard ratio of non-parole period to head sentence.
  • How the R v Henry guideline judgment applied to the attempted armed robbery charge.

Decision

Berman SC DCJ accepted that the offender came from a reasonably stable background and had shown early promise, including a positive work history before falling in with a new social group. Drug use followed, leading to deteriorating behaviour and eventual unemployment. The sentencing judge acknowledged the significant change in the offender's attitude since entering custody, as described by his mother, but noted that the offender had also breached his Supreme Court bail and absconded from a residential rehabilitation facility, making reliable predictions about future conduct difficult.

Applying the R v Henry guideline judgment to the attempted armed robbery, the court identified relevant parallels: the offender was young, had little criminal history, and was armed with a bladed weapon. The court also noted distinguishing features, including that the offence was an attempt only, that the co-offender carried a firearm (elevating the seriousness of the joint conduct), and that the offenders abandoned the robbery quickly when met with non-compliance.

The guilty pleas did not come at the earliest opportunity, as trial dates had been set before the pleas were entered. The court applied a discount of approximately 15 percent to reflect the utilitarian value of those pleas. The court also found special circumstances, conceded by the Crown, arising from the offender's youth and his first period of imprisonment, justifying a greater-than-standard gap between the non-parole period and the head sentence.

Because the two offences involved entirely separate criminal conduct, the court found that some accumulation of sentence was required. An aggregate sentence was imposed, with pre-sentence custody and approximately five months at the rehabilitation facility taken into account in setting the commencement date.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed with a non-parole period of three years, commencing 23 November 2014 and expiring 22 November 2017.
  • Head sentence of six years.
  • The offender became eligible for release to parole on 22 November 2017.

Key Takeaways

  • Even where an attempted armed robbery ends without injury or completed theft, the involvement of multiple offenders, disguises, a firearm, and a bladed weapon makes the offence one of considerable objective gravity, warranting a substantial custodial sentence.
  • The District Court applied a 15 percent discount for guilty pleas entered after trial dates had been set, reflecting reduced but still recognised utilitarian value.
  • Youth and a first period of imprisonment can constitute special circumstances justifying a longer gap between the non-parole period and head sentence than would otherwise apply.
  • Where two offences involve distinct and separate criminal conduct, a sentencing court is required to impose some degree of accumulation rather than full concurrency, even within an aggregate sentence.
  • Positive evidence of changed attitude and available family support does not automatically translate into a finding of good rehabilitation prospects, particularly where the offender has previously breached bail conditions and absconded.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Cases:
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 (guideline judgment on armed robbery sentencing)

Legislation:
- No specific legislation was cited in the provided judgment text.