Citation: R v Mullins; R v Watkins; R v Willcox [2022] NSWDC 341
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 June 2022
Judge(s): Bennett SC DCJ
Background
Three offenders, Mullins, Watkins, and Willcox, appeared together for sentencing after each pleaded guilty in the Local Court to robbery in company contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence occurred in the early hours of 5 June 2021 in Hunter Lane, Hornsby. The victim, who had finished a late shift at a nearby supermarket, approached two members of the group seeking to purchase cannabis and was subsequently subjected to a sustained and violent group attack.
The attack was captured on both CCTV footage and a 59-second mobile phone recording made by Willcox himself. The victim was repeatedly punched and kicked while on the ground, screamed for help, and feared he would be killed. His backpack and its contents were taken after he was beaten into releasing it.
While the three offenders shared the same principal charge, their individual circumstances diverged significantly. Watkins and Willcox faced additional offences, including breaches of apprehended violence orders and other matters, which were dealt with in the same proceedings.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of the robbery in company offence, having regard to the violence actually inflicted?
- How should each offender's moral culpability be assessed individually, particularly given different levels of participation?
- What weight should be given to drug addiction as a mitigating factor, and what effect does it have on prospects of rehabilitation?
- How should the 25% guilty plea discount be applied under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
- Were there special circumstances warranting a variation from the standard non-parole period ratio?
- How should aggregate sentences be structured to reflect totality across multiple offences for Watkins and Willcox?
Decision
The court placed the offending at least at the mid-range of objective seriousness, based on the agreed facts and the CCTV and phone footage reviewed by the judge. The violence was sustained, repeated, and inflicted on a victim who was trying to retreat and was calling for help. The court rejected any suggestion that the victim had provoked the attack, dismissing submissions that a minor touching had prompted the assault.
Each offender received a 25% discount on sentence for their early guilty pleas entered in the Local Court. The court treated the guilty plea as relevant not only to utilitarian value but also to the assessment of contrition and rehabilitation prospects. Moral culpability was assessed individually: Watkins arrived late to the scene, sprinting toward the group once the attack was already underway, which distinguished his role from that of Willcox, who threw the first punch and filmed the attack, and Mullins, who was present throughout.
Drug addiction featured prominently in the subjective circumstances of at least one offender, with the court acknowledging addiction as a mitigating factor relevant to moral culpability and rehabilitation, while also recognising it as relevant to specific deterrence. The court found special circumstances in each case, resulting in non-parole periods adjusted below the standard statutory ratio.
For Willcox, who faced the most extensive range of offences including multiple breaches of apprehended violence orders arising from a course of conduct involving a young complainant, the court imposed indicative sentences for each offence and then structured an aggregate term. The court noted the persistence of the AVO breaches as an aggravating feature, though it treated the additional matters as informing the overall aggregate rather than simply adding to the principal sentence.
Orders Made
Mullins: Sentenced on the robbery in company offence with a 25% guilty plea discount applied; specific aggregate sentence details for Mullins were not reproduced in the provided text.
Watkins: Specific aggregate sentence details for Watkins were not fully reproduced in the provided text.
Willcox:
- Indicative sentence of 3 months for damaging property (sequence H74565718)
- Indicative sentence of 3 months for breach of apprehended violence order (sequence H72892161)
- Indicative sentence of 3 months for sequence H72713876
- Indicative sentence of 4 months for sequence H72982238 (multiple telephone calls and text messages)
- Indicative sentence of 4 years 6 months for robbery in company
- Aggregate sentence of 4 years 8 months, comprising a non-parole period of 3 years from 5 June 2021 to 4 June 2024, with a further period of 1 year 8 months expiring 4 February 2026
- Community corrections orders revoked upon Willcox's consent to breaches being dealt with in the District Court
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that a robbery in company involving sustained, repeated physical violence and actual injury to the victim sits at least at the mid-range of objective seriousness, consistent with the Henry guideline judgment.
- Individual moral culpability must be assessed separately for each co-offender even where the facts are common to all, with timing of participation and nature of conduct within the group being relevant distinctions.
- Under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a guilty plea entered in the Local Court attracts a 25% discount, and the plea is also relevant to findings of contrition and rehabilitation prospects.
- Drug addiction may reduce moral culpability and inform rehabilitation prospects but simultaneously engages considerations of specific deterrence, meaning its net sentencing effect requires careful calibration.
- Filming a violent offence on a mobile phone, a pattern the court observed arising in other matters, was treated as a feature of the offending relevant to the overall assessment rather than as a separate neutral act.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1) (robbery in company)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D(2)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
- Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases:
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 (guideline judgment for robbery offences)
- Regina v Henry & Barber [1999] NSWCCA 107
- The Queen v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
- Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
- Luke v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 226