AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 20 April 2020

R v Pannu

[2020] NSWDC 299

Assault & violence
CRIME SENTENCE

Citation: R v Pannu [2020] NSWDC 299
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 April 2020
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender was sentenced for her role in the kidnapping of a 23-year-old woman on 19 December 2018. The victim had allegedly incurred a $2,000 debt to an associate known as Smokey, and a group including the offender collected her from her home under false pretences, claiming they would take her to a police station for a bail reporting obligation.

Once in the car, the victim quickly realised she was not being taken to the station. Over the course of the day, she was subjected to prolonged and serious violence across multiple locations in western Sydney. She was stabbed in the thigh, struck with a metal curtain rod, choked to the point of unconsciousness, restrained with a dog lead, had implements including blowtorches and pliers displayed as instruments of intimidation, and was repeatedly punched and hit by multiple co-offenders. Her personal property was also stolen.

The offender's role was active and ongoing. She drove the group, directed the victim to hand over her phone, struck the victim in the mouth, and participated in holding the victim while she was choked. She was present across all locations throughout the day. Notably, she intervened to prevent another co-offender from injecting the victim with blood, saying the victim still had to go home to her sons.

  • What sentence was appropriate for the principal offence of taking and detaining a person with intent to obtain a financial advantage in circumstances of special aggravation (s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900), carrying a maximum of 25 years imprisonment?
  • How should the court treat two additional offences on a Form 1 document: reckless choking and reckless wounding committed in company?
  • What discounts applied for the early guilty plea, past assistance, and a formal undertaking to provide future assistance?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's untreated psychiatric condition at the time of offending?
  • Did the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on conditions of custody warrant adjustment to the non-parole period?
  • Were there special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard ratio between head sentence and non-parole period?

Decision

The court found the offending to be objectively serious. The victim endured sustained, multi-location violence over many hours at the hands of several co-offenders, with the offender playing an active role throughout. The court gave considerable weight to deterrence, both personal and general, as is required when sentencing for serious offences of this kind.

The offender's untreated psychiatric condition at the time of the offending was accepted as a mitigating factor, and the court tempered the deterrence consideration to some degree on that basis. The offender had no prior relevant criminal history and this was her first time in custody, both of which also bore on the sentencing exercise.

A total discount of 50% was applied: 25% for the early guilty plea, 5% for past assistance, and 20% for a formal undertaking to provide future assistance. The court identified special circumstances justifying an extended parole period, citing the offender's first time in custody, additional hardship arising from COVID-19 restrictions in the custodial environment, and the need for extended supervision in the community upon release. The court expressly acknowledged that the pandemic made time in custody more onerous and factored that into the non-parole period.

Orders Made

  • Head sentence of three years and four months, dating from 20 December 2018
  • Non-parole period of two years, also dating from 20 December 2018
  • Head sentence to expire 19 March 2022; non-parole period to expire 19 December 2020
  • The court indicated that, but for the future assistance undertaking and the 20% discount, it would have imposed a head sentence of four years and eight months with a non-parole period of two years and nine months
  • The court recommended that a psychiatric report by Dr Richard Furst dated 19 March 2020 be provided to the Department of Corrective Services and to the parole authorities prior to the offender's consideration for parole

Key Takeaways

  • A 50% total discount is available in principle where an offender combines an early guilty plea (25%), past assistance to authorities (5%), and a formal undertaking to provide future assistance (20%), though the appropriate figures will always depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
  • Special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard head sentence to non-parole period ratio can rest on a combination of factors: a first time in custody, the particular hardships of the COVID-19 custodial environment at the time of sentencing, and the need for extended post-release supervision.
  • The District Court confirmed that an untreated psychiatric condition at the time of offending can reduce, to some degree, the weight given to deterrence in the sentencing calculus, without eliminating deterrence as a consideration entirely.
  • Under s 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, kidnapping in circumstances of special aggravation (being in company and inflicting actual bodily harm) carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period applying.
  • Where additional offences are placed before the court on a Form 1 document, the court takes them into account in determining the overall sentence for the principal offence, rather than imposing separate penalties.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 86(3)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Cases:
- Newell v R [2004] NSWCCA 183
- Sheen v R [2014] NSWCCA 42