AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 June 2022

R v Matangi

[2022] NSWDC 228

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons

Citation: R v Matangi [2022] NSWDC 228
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 June 2022
Judge: Scotting DCJ

Background

The offender, a young man born in 2001, appeared for sentence after pleading guilty in the Local Court to two counts of robbery with an offensive weapon under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Two additional matters were listed on a Form 1 (a procedure by which related charges are taken into account at sentencing without separate conviction).

The first principal offence occurred on 22 November 2020 at a bottle shop in Guildford West. The offender entered armed with a 30-centimetre kitchen knife and demanded the attendant open the cash register, stealing packets of cigarettes. The second principal offence occurred on 19 April 2021 at a BWS bottle shop in Yagoona. The offender again used a knife to threaten a staff member, demanding cash, and stole approximately $510 from the till before fleeing. Both incidents were captured on CCTV.

At the time of the offences the offender was unemployed, had recently had a son, and was awaiting the birth of a daughter. A forensic psychiatrist's report identified a history of apparent psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and paranoia, which had emerged in late 2019.

  • The appropriate aggregate sentence for two counts of armed robbery with an offensive weapon, plus two Form 1 matters
  • Whether a 25% guilty plea discount applied
  • Whether the offender's mental health history constituted a mitigating factor under s 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  • Whether genuine remorse had been established as a mitigating factor
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a longer parole period relative to the non-parole period
  • Whether any alternative to full-time imprisonment, including an Intensive Corrections Order, was appropriate

Decision

Scotting DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The individual indicative terms, after applying the 25% guilty plea discount and accounting for the Form 1 matters, were two years and nine months for the November 2020 offence and two years and six months for the April 2021 offence.

The court was not satisfied that the offender's mental illness had causally contributed to the offending to the degree required by s 21A(3)(i), as the offender himself attributed the offences to boredom, unemployment, and frustration. However, the mental health history and developing illness remained relevant background matters. The remorse expressed by the offender, including describing his conduct as "childish" and "silly," was accepted as genuine and taken into account, even though the higher statutory mitigating threshold was not met.

The court rejected an Intensive Corrections Order, finding the community would not be adequately protected given the violence involved in the offences and the offender's current lack of insight into his mental illness. A full-time custodial sentence was also considered necessary to provide adequate punishment.

Special circumstances were found, given that this was the offender's first period of custody and he had a serious mental illness requiring ongoing treatment. This justified extending the parole period beyond the standard ratio. The court also noted the offender's terminally ill mother and the conditions experienced by prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic as matters taken into account.

Orders Made

  • The offender convicted on both counts of robbery with an offensive weapon contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900
  • Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years imposed
  • Non-parole period of 18 months, commencing 5 September 2021, expiring 4 March 2023
  • Head sentence expiring 4 September 2024
  • Offender eligible for release on parole on 5 March 2023

Key Takeaways

  • A finding of special circumstances under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can justify a longer parole period where the offender is entering custody for the first time and has a serious mental illness requiring treatment.
  • Under s 21A(3)(i), establishing mental illness as a statutory mitigating factor requires satisfaction that the illness causally contributed to the offending; where the offender's own account attributes the conduct to other reasons, that higher threshold may not be met even if mental illness is present.
  • Genuine remorse expressed by an offender can still be considered in mitigation even where the formal statutory mitigating factor is not established to the required standard.
  • The District Court declined to impose an Intensive Corrections Order where the offences involved actual or threatened violence and the offender demonstrated insufficient insight into an emerging mental illness, finding community protection weighed against that option.
  • Collateral personal circumstances, including a terminally ill parent and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on prisoners, were acknowledged as matters relevant to sentencing, though they did not displace the need for full-time custody in this case.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1) (robbery with an offensive weapon)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 21A(3)(i), 25D(2)(a), 53A, 66

Cases
- Legge v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 244
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270