AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 18 March 2021

R v Steele

[2021] NSWDC 75

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons
MULTIPLE OFFENCES ROBBERY IN COMPANY YOUNG OFFENDER IMMATURE OFFENDING

Citation: R v Steele [2021] NSWDC 75
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 March 2021
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender was 18 years old at the time of sentencing, having been born in May 2001. Over two consecutive days in November 2019, when he was aged 18, he and a co-offender carried out a series of confrontations targeting young people in and around the Chatswood and Lane Cove areas of Sydney.

On 6 November 2019, the offender and his co-offender robbed a 14-year-old boy of an AirPod and hat at the Chatswood Interchange, threatening to stab him and his friends. Later that afternoon, in a nearby laneway, the offender produced a flick knife and threatened a group of three teenagers, waving the knife and making threats to kill. On 7 November 2019, the pair assaulted two further young people in Lane Cove, demanding wallets and making physical threats, though no property was ultimately taken in those incidents.

The offender was arrested on 7 November 2019. He had no prior criminal convictions. He had been under the care of a psychiatrist since at least 2017 for oppositional defiant disorder and generalised anxiety disorder, and had a history of cannabis use. He had known his co-offender for only two weeks before the offending occurred.

  • What sentence was appropriate for a young, first-time offender convicted of multiple serious offences including robbery in company and assault with intent to rob in company?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's youth, immaturity, mental health history, and demonstrated rehabilitation?
  • Whether the offences warranted full-time custody or whether a community-based sentence in the form of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was appropriate.
  • How to structure an aggregate sentence across multiple related offences consistently with the principles in Pearce v R and R v Henry.

Decision

His Honour acknowledged the serious objective gravity of the offences. Robbery in company and assault with intent to rob in company each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, and the offending involved threats with a knife and physical violence against multiple vulnerable victims, carried out in public view of bystanders including other school children.

Nonetheless, the court placed significant weight on the offender's youth and immaturity at the time of the offending. His Honour found that the offending was impulsive and unplanned rather than premeditated, that the offender had only recently met his co-offender, and that his behaviour was consistent with the kind of immature decision-making that characterises adolescent offending. The offender's mental health history, including diagnosed oppositional defiant disorder and anxiety disorder, was treated as relevant context, though not as a mitigating factor reducing his moral culpability to a significant degree.

The court also found genuine remorse and meaningful progress toward rehabilitation. The offender had engaged consistently with his psychiatrist, stopped using cannabis since his arrest, expressed sincere regret for the impact on his victims, and had the strong support of his family. His Honour noted that the concept of community safety is closely linked to rehabilitation in sentencing, and that the offender had positively advanced his rehabilitation prospects.

Taking all of these matters into account, and giving particular weight to the principles applicable to young offenders, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of 12 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, was appropriate. The knife custody offence was dealt with by way of conviction without further penalty under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of all five offences: armed with intent to commit an indictable offence (s 114(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900); robbery in company (s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900); custody of a knife in a public place (s 11C Summary Offences Act 1988); and two counts of assault with intent to rob in company (s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900).
  • An aggregate sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed in respect of Sequences 2, 5, 8, and 9, pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • The sentence was ordered to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) under s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, commencing on the date of sentence.
  • Standard ICO conditions applied: no further offending, and submission to supervision by a Community Corrections Officer.
  • An additional condition required the offender to accept supervision and comply with any rehabilitation or treatment recommended by his Community Corrections Officer.
  • The offender was required to report to the Community Corrections Office in Sydney within seven days.
  • In respect of the knife custody offence (Sequence 7): convicted with no further penalty pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that youth and immaturity remain significant sentencing considerations even where the offences are objectively serious, particularly where offending is impulsive rather than planned.
  • A first-time offender's genuine engagement with mental health treatment, demonstrated cessation of drug use, and credible family support can collectively support a finding that rehabilitation has meaningfully commenced before sentencing.
  • Where an offender has already spent a period in pre-sentence custody followed by a period on strict bail conditions, those periods remain relevant to the overall assessment of what sentence is required.
  • Under s 17D(1A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court may impose an ICO without first obtaining a Sentence Assessment Report where it is satisfied it has sufficient information to do so.
  • Conviction without further penalty under s 10A is available as a discrete disposal for a less serious offence forming part of a broader series of related charges, even where more substantial sentences are imposed for the principal offences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 114(1)(a)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 7(1), 10A, 17D(1A), 53A, 73(1) and (2)
- Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 11C

Cases
- Howard v R [2019] NSWCCA 109
- Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Yildiz v R [2020] NSWCCA 69