Citation: R v Lloyd [2023] NSWDC 617
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 September 2023
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 22-year-old man, was sentenced for aggravated robbery under s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, the circumstance of aggravation being the use of corporal violence. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment.
The offence arose from a premeditated scheme. The offender used a false identity to respond to a Facebook Marketplace advertisement for a gold and diamond bracelet valued at approximately $15,000, placed by a 27-year-old woman who was 20 weeks pregnant. When the parties met at a shopping complex in Claremont Meadows on 8 September 2022, the offender attempted to snatch the bracelet, pushed the victim to the ground when she bent to retrieve it, and fled with the item. The victim called out that she was pregnant as she fell. She suffered a fractured wrist and was hospitalised.
Two days later, the offender pawned the bracelet at a pawn shop using a false declaration of ownership, receiving $10,000 in cash. Police identified him through CCTV footage and phone records. The bracelet was recovered and returned to the victim, but the pawn shop remained out of pocket by $10,000. Two further matters, disposing of stolen property and furnishing false information under the Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996, were placed on a Form 1 document to be taken into account at sentence.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate head sentence and non-parole period for the aggravated robbery, taking into account the Form 1 matters?
- What discount applied for the early guilty plea?
- How did totality principles interact with an existing sentence imposed in the Local Court for related offending?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify departing from the standard ratio between head sentence and non-parole period.
Decision
Bourke SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the robbery as slightly below mid-range. The offence involved a degree of planning through the use of a false identity and a deliberate arrangement to meet the victim, though the use of violence was found to be spontaneous rather than premeditated. The resulting fracture to the victim's wrist was regarded as reasonably foreseeable, even if the precise injury was not intended.
The pregnancy was acknowledged as a factual feature but was not treated as an aggravating circumstance, as it was not apparent to the offender and was not reasonably foreseeable. The court noted that no weapon was used, the actual violence was limited to a push, and the property was recovered, although the pawn shop's loss of $10,000 was a continuing consequence. The offender's criminal history was described as fairly substantial, and while his youth was a mitigating factor, its weight was reduced by that history.
The court applied a 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value of the early guilty plea, while noting that the guilty plea's significance was somewhat reduced by the strength of the Crown case. The court referred to the guideline judgment in R v Henry as a relevant guide, adapting its principles to the circumstances of a non-armed robbery.
On totality, the court took into account that the offender was already serving sentences imposed in the Local Court for a police pursuit offence and driving unlicensed, both commencing from 26 September 2022. The court backdated the current sentence to 25 February 2023, representing the approximate midpoint of the non-parole period for the pursuit sentence, as the appropriate balance between the overlap of custodial terms and the distinct nature of the robbery offending.
Orders Made
- Head sentence of 3 years and 2 months, commencing 25 February 2023 and expiring 24 April 2026.
- Non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, expiring 24 October 2024.
- Two Form 1 matters (disposing of stolen property; furnishing false information under the Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996) taken into account.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court assessed an aggravated robbery involving premeditation, a false identity, and a fractured wrist to a pregnant victim as falling slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness, principally because the violence itself was spontaneous and no weapon was used.
- A guilty plea's utilitarian value can be diminished where the Crown case against the offender is reasonably strong, even when the plea is entered at an early opportunity.
- The victim's pregnancy did not operate as an aggravating feature because it was not known to or reasonably foreseeable by the offender at the time of the offence.
- Under totality principles, a sentencing court may backdate a sentence to a point within the non-parole period of an existing sentence, ensuring that the combined effect of all sentences remains proportionate to the totality of the offending.
- Guideline judgments such as R v Henry, although directed at armed robbery, remain relevant reference points when sentencing for related offences such as aggravated robbery, with appropriate adjustments for the different circumstances.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 95(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases
- R v Henry and Others [1999] 106 A Crim R 149 (guideline judgment on robbery sentencing)
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002
- BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
- Bugmy v The Queen (2012) 249 CLR 571
- Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
- Porter v R [2019] NSWCCA 117 (totality principles)
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2