AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 27 March 2026

R v Jinnette

[2026] NSWDC 73

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons
ARMED ROBBERY IN COMPANY INSTITUTIONALISED OFFENDER APPLICATION OF BUGMY PRINCIPLES

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 73
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a 44-year-old Indigenous man, was sentenced for an offence of armed robbery in company pursuant to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). On 28 March 2024, the offender and two co-offenders robbed a jewellery shop in Lane Cove. The offence involved a degree of planning: the offenders scouted the premises, disguised themselves with balaclavas, arrived in a vehicle with false licence plates, and had a support car organised. One co-offender carried what appeared to be a black pistol, which was pointed around the store during the robbery. A shop owner, a shop assistant, a customer, and two children aged 8 and 11 were present at the time. The offender struck the shop owner with his forearm before stealing a Swatch watch valued between $200 and $300.

At the time of the offence, the offender was on parole for a previous conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. His parole was subsequently revoked. He had been in custody since his arrest on 7 May 2024 in respect of this and other matters. His criminal history was extensive, commencing in the Children's Court in 1995 and including consistent periods of incarceration for offences of dishonesty, violence, drugs, and motor vehicle offences since 1999.

A key aspect of the sentencing proceedings was the offender's profoundly disadvantaged background. Removed from his mother's care at age 4, placed in foster care at 6, and made a ward of the State at 8, the offender suffered serious physical and sexual abuse while under government care. He was moved between boys' homes before entering juvenile detention from age 13 or 14. He began using cannabis at 13 and was injecting heroin daily by 14. Psychologist Ms Hawil diagnosed him with Anti-social Personality Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and substance use disorders, while earlier expert reports had diagnosed complex PTSD with dissociative features directly linked to his childhood abuse. He entered a guilty plea prior to committal and expressed remorse for the offending, particularly acknowledging the impact on the children present.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the armed robbery in company offence, having regard to the level of planning, actual and threatened violence, the presence of children, and the offender's role?
  • What discount should be applied for the offender's early guilty plea?
  • How should the Bugmy v The Queen principles be applied in sentencing an offender with a profoundly deprived background, extensive history of institutionalisation, and diagnosed mental health conditions arising from childhood abuse while in State care?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, given his lengthy criminal history and deeply entrenched patterns of offending and institutionalisation?
  • How should the sentence be structured having regard to the offender's existing custodial obligations (including a separate sentence for break and enter) and the revocation of his parole?

Decision

The judgment text available is truncated, and certain aspects of the court's final reasoning are not included in the extract provided. What follows is drawn from the portions of the sentencing remarks that are available.

Objective seriousness: The Crown submitted that the offence involved a substantial degree of planning and organisation — including scouting the premises, use of disguises, a firearm (or imitation firearm), false licence plates, and a support vehicle. The offending was committed brazenly during daytime hours, in the presence of members of the public including two young children who became visibly distressed. Actual violence was used (the offender struck the proprietor), and the co-offender brandished a pistol, for which the offender was also liable through the joint criminal enterprise. The Crown argued that the offender's efforts to steal more were only stymied by his inability to break the glass cabinet and the disturbance caused by the children. These factors pointed to offending that, while involving relatively modest proceeds, was serious in character.

Mitigating factors and Bugmy principles: The sentencing exercise required application of the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 and R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58. The offender's background of profound deprivation — removal from family, State wardship, physical and sexual abuse in government care, early onset drug addiction, and resulting diagnoses of complex PTSD, Anti-social Personality Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder — was directly relevant to assessing moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence. Expert evidence connected his offending behaviour directly and indirectly to the abuse he suffered while under government care. Ms Hawil also noted the offender was institutionalised and reported that he struggles in the community. The court was asked to consider that these circumstances, consistent with Bugmy, do not diminish over time and must be given full weight in sentencing, even in the context of a very lengthy criminal record.

Guilty plea and remorse: The offender entered his plea of guilty prior to committal, entitling him to a 25% discount on sentence. His letter of remorse expressed acceptance of responsibility and acknowledged the fear and harm caused to the victims, including the children. He also reported commencing counselling for his abuse and expressed a desire to break the cycle of offending.

Prospects of rehabilitation: The offender's extensive criminal record and pattern of institutionalisation since adolescence posed a significant challenge to any finding of favourable rehabilitation prospects. However, he had commenced treatment programs, was receiving buprenorphine for opioid dependency, and had begun counselling. The psychologist provided a treatment plan for community reintegration. It should be noted that the principle in Veen v R [No. 2] requires that the sentence remain proportionate to the offence, notwithstanding any pessimistic view of rehabilitation.

Note: Because the text of the judgment was truncated, the specific sentence imposed and the court's final conclusions on several issues (including precise findings on objective seriousness, the weight given to each factor, totality considerations, and the ultimate orders) are not available for this summary. Readers are encouraged to consult the full judgment.

Orders Made

  • The specific sentence and orders imposed by the court are not available in the truncated text provided. Readers should refer to the full published judgment for these details.

Key Takeaways

  • Bugmy principles remained central in sentencing the Indigenous offender, whose background involved profound deprivation. The District Court applied Bugmy and Fernando to an offender whose life trajectory, from removal from family to State wardship, institutional abuse, substance addiction, and chronic offending, was shaped by childhood trauma suffered while in government care. The Court confirmed that these principles do not lose force over time or by reason of a lengthy criminal history.

  • Expert evidence linking offending to childhood trauma carried significant weight. Detailed psychological and psychiatric reports established diagnoses of complex PTSD, Anti-social Personality Disorder, and substance use disorders, all traced to the offender's childhood abuse. The Court relied on these thorough expert assessments in drawing clear causal links between the offender's background and their offending behaviour.

  • Objective seriousness of the armed robbery in company turned on planning, violence, and impact on vulnerable persons. The District Court accepted the Crown's submissions emphasising the degree of premeditation, the use of a weapon, the commission of the offence in the presence of young children, and the brazenness of the daytime robbery, all matters that elevated the seriousness of the offence despite the modest value of the property stolen.

  • A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea, entered prior to committal, consistent with established sentencing practice under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

  • Institutionalisation was treated as a relevant sentencing consideration. The Court found that the offender had spent the majority of their life in custody and reported difficulty functioning in the community. This factor was weighed both in assessing moral culpability and in structuring the sentence to provide realistic support for rehabilitation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)(ea)

Cases cited:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 27
- R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
- *Veen v R