AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 19 July 2019

R v Chapman

[2019] NSWDC 902

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIME SENTENCING ROBBERY IN COMPANY

Citation: R v Chapman [2019] NSWDC 902
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 July 2019
Judge(s): Wilson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man born in March 1995, appeared for sentencing on two principal charges arising from events on 15 April 2017. The charges were robbery in company under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment) and taking and driving a conveyance under s 154A(1)(a) (maximum penalty: 5 years). Two further offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 192E(1)(b) (maximum penalty: 10 years each) were dealt with on a certificate under s 166 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The agreed facts described a late-night home invasion at Wyoming on the Central Coast. The offender and an unidentified companion, both wearing hats and hoodies to conceal their faces and carrying golf clubs, entered the victim's bedroom while he was watching television. They demanded drugs, forced the victim to cover his head, took his phone, wallet and car keys, extracted his bank PIN through repeated threats of serious violence, and stole his car. In the early hours of the following morning, the victim's debit card was used at an ATM at North Gosford to withdraw a total of $500. The offender's DNA was found on a kitchen door handle in the home, on a shirt inside the victim's stolen car, and on a soft drink can in the centre console.

The offender had pleaded guilty at an early stage and had been in custody since his arrest on 25 July 2018, a pre-sentence custody period of 360 days. At the time of the offending he was on parole for possessing an unauthorised firearm and a prior deception offence, though parole was ultimately reinstated and had since expired. The co-offender remained unidentified, so no parity issues arose.

  • What discount applied to the sentence in recognition of the offender's early guilty plea?
  • Where did each offence fall on the spectrum of objective seriousness?
  • How should the offender's deprived background, history of drug use, and prior criminal record be weighed in mitigation and as a sentencing consideration?
  • What head sentence and non-parole period were appropriate, taking into account totality and the need for specific and general deterrence?

Decision

His Honour assessed the robbery in company as falling at approximately the mid-range of objective seriousness. The offence involved a planned home invasion at night, threats of serious violence, the use of golf clubs as weapons, and sustained intimidation of the victim throughout the event. The take and drive offence was assessed as falling below the mid-range, and the two deception offences (the ATM withdrawals) were placed at the low range of objective criminality.

The offender's early guilty plea attracted a 25% reduction across all offences. His Honour took into account a psychologist's report detailing a genuinely deprived upbringing, including the early loss of his mother, a period in foster care during which he was assaulted, and the subsequent deaths of his grandparents. These matters were accepted as relevant background but were balanced against a criminal history extending back to approximately 2012 and including a prior aggravated break and enter in company, firearm offences, and repeated deception offences. His Honour also noted that the offender had been found in possession of a drug implement in prison as recently as May 2019.

Applying the principles in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 and R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, the court noted that none of the offences carried a standard non-parole period, so no indicative non-parole periods were required. An aggregate sentence was imposed. The offender was required to be supervised by Community Corrections on release and to participate in any recommended rehabilitation programs.

Orders Made

  • Convicted of robbery in company (s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900)
  • Convicted of take and drive a conveyance (s 154A(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900)
  • Convicted of two counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception (s 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900)
  • Head sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years
  • Sentence dated from 25 July 2018; eligible for release on parole on 24 July 2020; balance of term to expire 24 January 2022
  • Upon release, the offender to be supervised by Community Corrections and to participate in any recommended rehabilitation programs

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court placed a late-night home invasion involving golf clubs, sustained verbal threats, and a forced PIN extraction at approximately the mid-range of objective seriousness for robbery in company under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • A 25% sentencing discount applied across all offences in recognition of an early guilty plea entered in the Local Court.
  • Genuine evidence of a deprived upbringing and disadvantaged background can carry mitigating weight, but that weight may be moderated by an extensive criminal history and ongoing conduct in custody inconsistent with rehabilitation.
  • Where a co-offender remains unidentified, no issue of parity arises in sentencing the identified offender.
  • Under Muldrock v The Queen, the maximum penalty for an offence functions as a legislative signal of the seriousness with which Parliament views that class of conduct; it is one of the relevant factors a sentencing court weighs when positioning the offence on the spectrum of objective seriousness.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 154A(1)(a), 192E(1)(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 166

Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346