Citation: R v Sam Michael Booth [2018] NSWDC 250
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 September 2018
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The offender, aged 26 at the time of the offences, had been in an intimate relationship with the victim, aged 21, for approximately one month before the offending occurred in mid-October 2017. On the night of 14 October 2017, following an argument in which the victim told the offender the relationship was over, the offender prevented her from leaving the home, restrained her on the floor, and held a knife against her throat while demanding money. The victim sustained cuts to her throat, shoulder and collarbone, bruising, and carpet burns.
After the victim handed over $550, the offender spent approximately half an hour threatening to kill her, her infant son, and her family if she went to police. He then left with the money. Two days later, in the early hours of 16 October 2017, the offender sent the victim a series of text messages including a photograph of a person holding a rifle. A search warrant executed at premises in Queensland following the offender's arrest the next day uncovered a rifle believed to be the one depicted in that image.
The offender was charged with aggravated robbery and intimidation (the latter being a domestic violence related offence). He asked that three further matters, including unlawful detention, common assault, and a further intimidation offence, be taken into account on a Form 1 at sentencing.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for the aggravated robbery, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending, the domestic violence context, and the offender's criminal history?
- What sentence was appropriate for the domestic violence related intimidation offence?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify departing from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence.
- How should the sentences for the two principal offences be structured (concurrently or cumulatively) consistent with the totality principle?
Decision
Mahony SC DCJ assessed the aggravated robbery as objectively serious. The offending involved a knife placed directly against the victim's throat on multiple occasions, physical restraint, punching, and a prolonged period of threats to kill. The domestic setting and the victim's particular vulnerability, including the presence of her young child and the brief duration of the relationship, were treated as aggravating features.
The offender's criminal history was a significant factor weighing against him. He had a prior conviction for aggravated break and enter involving a replica firearm, and convictions for common assault, affray, and offences of using intimidation or violence. The court found a pattern of escalating violence. The offender's expressions of remorse in text messages sent to the victim the day after the assault were noted, but were weighed against his denial of the offending in his formal police interview and his provision of a false alibi.
In mitigation, the court considered the offender's difficult background, including childhood exposure to domestic violence, the loss of his mother in 2013, and the prospect of rehabilitation supported by family. The offender had pleaded guilty, though not at the earliest opportunity. The court declined to find special circumstances, concluding there was insufficient evidence of specific rehabilitative needs that would justify extending the supervision period beyond the statutory ratio.
The court structured the sentences so that the 12-month fixed term for intimidation ran partly concurrently with the aggravated robbery sentence, producing a total effective sentence of 6 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 5 years.
Orders Made
- Convicted of intimidation (domestic violence related) under s 13(1) of the Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007; sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment commencing 17 October 2017, served partly concurrently.
- Convicted of aggravated robbery under s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900; sentenced to 6 years imprisonment commencing 17 June 2018, served partly concurrently.
- Total term: 6 years and 8 months.
- Non-parole period: 5 years, commencing 17 October 2017 and terminating 16 October 2022.
- Balance of term: 1 year and 8 months, commencing 17 October 2022 and terminating 16 June 2024.
- Three matters certified and taken into account on Form 1.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court treated the domestic violence context as a significant aggravating factor in the sentencing exercise, particularly where the offending involved weapons, physical restraint, and threats against the victim's child and family.
- A prior pattern of violent and intimidatory offending, including an earlier armed robbery conviction, weighed heavily against the offender and informed the court's assessment of moral culpability.
- Expressions of remorse made shortly after an offence carry limited mitigatory weight where the offender subsequently denies the conduct in formal proceedings and provides a false alibi.
- Special circumstances under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 were not established merely by reference to a general need for rehabilitation from drug, alcohol, or anger management issues; the court required concrete evidence of specific rehabilitative needs.
- The totality principle applied through partial concurrency, with the court structuring the sentences to reflect the overall criminality of the offending without producing a disproportionate result.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 95(1) (aggravated robbery)
- Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1) (intimidation)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases
- Baradi v R [2018] NSWCCA 143
- Diaz v R [2018] NSWCCA 33
- Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465