Citation: R v Jessee Lionel Murray [2017] NSWDC 466
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 August 2017
Judge: Haesler SC DCJ
Background
The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court to aggravated robbery and was committed to the District Court for sentence. On 4 October 2016, he entered a suburban post office in Tarrawanna, threatened the console operator with a false claim of being armed, jumped the counter, punched and pushed the victim on multiple occasions, and stole approximately $21 from the till. A separate matter of intentional property damage arising from the same flight from the scene was dealt with on a Form 1.
The victim, a 61-year-old man providing a community service, suffered physical contact and was subjected to threats in the presence of bystanders. The court noted that even without a Victim Impact Statement, the psychological harm to the victim and the broader impact on community trust were real and significant.
The offender had spent more than 82% of his adult life in custody. He had been released from a prior sentence for a similar offence only two months before this offence, without any support, supervision, or mental health programs in place.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for an aggravated robbery, given an early guilty plea and a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment?
- To what extent did the offender's severe childhood deprivation, history of trauma, mental illness, and institutionalisation mitigate the sentence?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a non-parole period that departed from the standard statutory ratio, to allow for an extended period of supervised release.
- What weight should be given to general deterrence where the offender has a significant history of mental illness and drug dependency?
Decision
Haesler SC DCJ accepted that full-time custody was the only appropriate sentencing option given the seriousness of the offence. The judge treated the maximum penalty of 20 years as an important benchmark and had regard to the Court of Criminal Appeal's guidance in Henry, which confirmed that general deterrence remains a relevant consideration even where an offender has mental health and drug problems, though its weight may be reduced in individual cases.
The court received a comprehensive psychiatric report from Dr Furst, which the judge expressly commended for its objectivity and thoroughness. The report confirmed the offender suffered from bipolar affective disorder, had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse, and had grown up in a deeply traumatic and disadvantaged environment. Consistent with Bugmy v The Queen, the court accepted that the offender's profound deprivation since childhood was a genuine mitigating factor that did not diminish with the passage of time or the accumulation of prior convictions.
The judge found that the offender was effectively institutionalised, having spent the great majority of his adult life in custody, and that his reoffending after the most recent release was rendered almost inevitable by the complete absence of any support, supervision, or mental health assistance upon his discharge. While stopping short of directing the executive, the court expressed the view that releasing a person in the offender's circumstances without any structured support was a systemic flaw, and that the community itself suffered as a result.
A finding of special circumstances was made, resulting in a longer-than-standard parole period. The court reasoned that the offender required extended supervision and assistance in the community to have any meaningful prospect of rehabilitation, and that community safety was better served by that structure than by a shorter supervised period. The judge made specific recommendations regarding drug rehabilitation programs, psychiatric care in custody, and community services upon release.
Orders Made
- Total sentence of three years and nine months imprisonment.
- Non-parole period of two years and eight months, commencing 4 October 2016 and expiring 3 June 2019.
- Balance of parole of one year and one month; total sentence expiring 3 July 2020.
- The property damage matter taken into account on a Form 1.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that general deterrence retains relevance in aggravated robbery sentencing, even where the offender suffers from mental illness and drug dependency, consistent with Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.
- Under the principle affirmed in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, the mitigating effect of severe childhood deprivation and trauma does not diminish over time or because of a lengthy criminal history; the sentencing court must give it genuine weight on each occasion.
- A finding of special circumstances was justified where the offender's profound institutionalisation meant that an extended period of post-release supervision was necessary for both rehabilitation and community protection.
- The court made pointed observations about systemic gaps in prisoner reintegration, noting that releasing a seriously mentally unwell offender without any support, accommodation, medication oversight, or rehabilitation programs made further offending foreseeable.
- Specific recommendations as to programs, including the Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program, EQUIPS, and community services such as Oolong House and The Glen, were recorded in the judgment to guide correctional authorities, though the court acknowledged these remained recommendations only.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 135
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Buxton v R [2017] NSWCCA 169
- Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346