Citation: R v KRAJEWSKI, Miglio Alexander [2017] NSWDC 383
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 July 2017
Judge: Judge S Norrish QC
Background
A 20-year-old offender, described as a university student with serious prescription drug dependency, entered a pharmacy in Cremorne at around 8:30pm on 18 July 2016. He brandished a pair of metallic scissors, demanded all Schedule 8 drugs (a category of tightly controlled prescription medications under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1999), and left with a significant quantity of painkillers, benzodiazepines, and $290 in cash. The pharmacist and her assistant complied, and no one was physically harmed.
Earlier the same evening, the offender had attended two pharmacies attempting to fill forged prescriptions, each in variants of the same false name. A notebook found in his possession after arrest contained detailed notes on obtaining prescription drugs from practitioners and instructions on synthesising prohibited substances including methamphetamine.
The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court. A co-accused, who was not present during the robbery itself, was dealt with separately in the Local Court for lesser charges (receiving stolen property and uttering a forged prescription) and was discharged under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.
Legal Issues
- The appropriate sentence for armed robbery under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum 20 years; no standard non-parole period), having regard to all relevant objective and subjective factors
- The proper discount to apply for an early guilty plea under the R v Thompson and Houlton guideline
- Whether any parity issue arose between the offender's sentence and the outcome for the co-accused
- The weight to be given to the offender's drug addiction, youth, personal circumstances, and rehabilitation prospects
- Where the offence sat on the spectrum of objective seriousness for this type of offending
Decision
Judge Norrish found that the offending was serious but arose from the offender's profound addiction to prescription drugs rather than any planned criminal enterprise. The robbery was characterised as an impulsive act, undertaken without significant pre-meditation beyond the opportunistic acquisition of scissors and a milk crate near the pharmacy. The court noted that no physical violence was used, though the presence of a weapon and the presence of a child in the pharmacy were aggravating features.
The court placed the offence below the middle range of objective seriousness, acknowledging it was not the least serious example of its type but finding that purely objective considerations pointed to the lower end of that range. The offender's youth (aged 20), his Type 1 diabetes diagnosis, his multilingual background, his enrolment at the University of Sydney studying political, economic and social sciences, and his active engagement with the Odyssey House residential rehabilitation program were all treated as significant subjective mitigating factors.
A full 25% discount was applied to the sentence to reflect the utilitarian benefit of the early guilty plea, in accordance with the Thompson and Houlton guideline. On the parity question, the court found that no genuine parity issue arose: the co-accused faced materially different and less serious charges, dealt with summarily in the Local Court, whereas the principal offender was before the District Court for an offence carrying a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.
The sentence was not finalised at the July 2017 hearing. The court adjourned the matter to February 2018, continuing the offender on bail subject to strict conditions requiring ongoing residential treatment at Odyssey House. Judge Norrish described the arrangement as a "sword of Damocles," making clear that any breach of conditions would result in the offender returning to custody without the benefit of any rehabilitation progress being taken into account.
Orders Made
• Advise the Registrar of the District Court Downing Centre of any change of residential address
• Community Corrections Service to prepare a report for the Court on or before 9 February 2018
• Report any breaches of conditions of bail as soon as is reasonably practicable
• Offender to enter fresh bail at level 3 before leaving Court
• Adjourned to Friday 9 February 2018 at 9.30am
Key Takeaways
- The District Court treated serious prescription drug addiction as a significant mitigating factor in sentencing for armed robbery, particularly where the offending was impulsive and directed at obtaining drugs rather than financial gain.
- A 25% sentencing discount applied for an early guilty plea entered in the Local Court, consistent with the Thompson and Houlton guideline on the utilitarian value of such pleas.
- No parity issue arose where a co-accused was dealt with summarily in the Local Court for materially different and less serious charges, even though both individuals were connected to the same incident.
- Where the offending lacked planning, involved no physical injury, and was driven by addiction rather than calculated criminality, the court assessed it as below the middle range of objective seriousness for armed robbery.
- Youth, active rehabilitation participation, and personal circumstances (including a chronic medical condition) can combine to justify adjourning sentence and continuing bail on strict conditions to allow rehabilitation to proceed before a final sentence is imposed.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1) (robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 32
- Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1999 (NSW) (Schedule 8 drugs)
Cases:
- R v Thompson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 (guideline judgment on guilty plea discounts)
- Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Yuksel [2012] NSWCCA 84
- R v Henry and Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
- R v Farrell [2014] NSWCCA 30
- R v Hopoi [2014] NSWCCA 263
- R v Trindall [2002] NSWCCA 364
- Legge v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 244
- R v Lattouf (NSWCCA, 12 December 1996, unreported)