Citation: R v Stratton [2025] NSWDC 224
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 June 2025
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 46-year-old man with a lengthy criminal history and a diagnosed schizophrenic illness, pleaded guilty to robbery under s 94(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). On 19 April 2024, he entered a Westpac Bank branch in George Street, Sydney, and passed a teller a note falsely claiming he had a bomb in his bag and was armed with a gun. The teller placed approximately $10,000 in cash into an envelope, which the offender took before leaving the branch. He was arrested the following evening at a Parramatta hotel.
During his post-arrest interview, the offender made statements revealing profound delusional thinking. He described twin daughters being held captive and tortured, a billionaire uncle who had hired 23 men to kill him, and a torture farm where friends and former partners were being harmed. Psychiatric evidence later confirmed these statements were consistent with active psychotic symptoms.
The offender had an extensive prior record spanning drug offences, weapons offences, and a significant sentence in 2017 for assaulting and intimidating police while in possession of an unauthorised firearm. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2014 and had received community mental health support following his release on parole in 2021, including multiple psychiatric admissions to Cumberland, Blacktown, and St Vincent's Hospitals.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for a s 94(a) robbery where the offender's mental illness significantly affected his conduct at the time of the offending?
- To what extent did the offender's schizophrenia and active psychosis reduce his moral culpability?
- What weight should be given to general and specific deterrence where the offender suffers from a serious mental illness?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio, warranting a longer period on parole.
Decision
His Honour accepted the psychiatric evidence of Dr Furst that the offender was experiencing active psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and elaborate persecutory delusions, at the time of the robbery. The offender reportedly believed he was acting on instructions from a friend to commit the robbery as a means of escaping his uncle's torture. His Honour found that this substantially reduced the offender's moral culpability, though it did not excuse the conduct entirely.
The court applied the well-established principle that mental illness diminishes an offender's suitability as a vehicle for general or specific deterrence. His Honour found that both forms of deterrence should play a reduced role in the sentencing exercise. The court also accepted that the offender would find custody more onerous than the general prison population, particularly given that his schizophrenia had not been appropriately treated during his current period of detention.
The offender's prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as guarded. Dr Furst placed his risk of reoffending in the medium-to-high range, citing the chronic nature of his mental health diagnoses and ongoing drug and alcohol issues. His Honour was mindful that subjective factors, including mental illness, could not be permitted to overshadow the objective seriousness of the offending, which involved a threat of extreme violence and the theft of approximately $10,000 from a bank teller.
Special circumstances were found to exist, based on the offender's mental health diagnoses and his need for a longer supervised period in the community to assist his rehabilitation. A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea. The sentence was structured with an equal non-parole period and balance of term, reflecting the finding of special circumstances.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of robbery pursuant to s 94(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months.
- Non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, commencing 20 April 2024 and expiring 19 January 2026.
- Balance of term of 1 year and 9 months, commencing 20 January 2026 and terminating 19 October 2027.
- Parole eligibility date: 19 January 2026.
- The report of Dr Furst dated 29 January 2025 was recommended to be forwarded to the Department of Corrective Services and Justice Health NSW.
Key Takeaways
- Active psychotic symptoms at the time of a robbery can substantially reduce an offender's moral culpability, even where the offending is objectively serious and involves threats of extreme violence.
- The District Court confirmed that an offender experiencing a severe mental illness is not a suitable vehicle for general or specific deterrence, and that both must play a diminished role in the sentencing synthesis in such cases.
- Where a mental illness renders custody more onerous than it would be for the general prison population, the court treats this as a relevant subjective factor, particularly where the condition has not been appropriately treated during remand.
- Special circumstances were established on the basis of the offender's chronic psychiatric diagnoses and the need for an extended period of supervised parole to support community reintegration, justifying an equal non-parole and balance of term.
- Notwithstanding the reduction in moral culpability attributable to mental illness, the court emphasised that subjective factors must not be permitted to overshadow the objective gravity of the offence in the sentencing synthesis.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 94(a) (robbery, maximum 14 years imprisonment)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including s 5, s 9, s 10A
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Cases
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Gary Bloomfield v R [2013] NSWCCA 315
- Marrow v R [2015] NSWCCA 282
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111