Director of Public Prosecutions v Pittard
[2013] VCC 1150
•21 August 2013
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for PublicationCase No. CR-13-00111
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v LENDY PITTARD ---
JUDGE:
HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
8 August 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:
21 August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
DPP v Pittard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2013] VCC 1150
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Sentence – armed robbery (one charge) - Extensive criminal record – Co-offenders – Parity
Sentence:Total Effective Sentence of four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and six months’ imprisonment – s.6AAA Sentencing Act declaration – Ancillary orders compensation
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors For the DPP Ms A Kapitaniak Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions For the Accused Mr C Farrington Emma Turnbull Lawyers HER HONOUR:
1 Lendy Pittard, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of armed robbery, which has a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.
2 You are 32 years of age and were 31 at the time of the offending.
3 At the time you committed the armed robbery, you were in a relationship with a co-offender, Linda Vicari, and co-offenders, Marina Grubisic and Channa Riem were also in a relationship. You had all known each other for a number of years.
4 On 4 June 2012, you and the three co-offenders to whom I have just referred, all met at a caravan park. Shortly after this, you all used a drug of dependence by injecting this into yourselves with a syringe. At about 7.30pm, Riem drove Grubisic’s car to the Pascoe Vale area. The car had Victorian registration plates on it but these actually belonged to a car owned by a Melissa Hill and had been removed from her car in West Melbourne earlier that day.
5 You were next to Riem in the front passenger seat, whilst Vicari and Grubisic were sitting in the back of the car. Riem pulled up at the Speedway Quick Shop service station in Kent Road, Pascoe Vale. You, Riem and Vicari got out of the car and entered the store.
6 Vicari stood at the entrance of the store keeping watch, whilst you and Riem entered the store. Riem entered the store first and was followed by you.
7 You were wearing a black baseball cap and Riem was wearing a black ‘hoodie’. After you had left the car, Grubisic moved from the back passenger seat to the driver’s seat.
8 Once inside the store, you produced a knife and demanded the assistant to sit on the floor. The victim, Jibrail Naveed, complied with this request and knelt down as you attempted to open the register. When you could not open the register, Naveed offered to open the register for you, and did so from his seated position. You emptied the cash register and Riem walked to the cigarette cabinet, opening this before taking packets of cigarettes and stuffing them in his pockets. This gives rise to the charge of armed robbery.
9 Another customer then pulled into the service station and Vicari warned you and Riem that they had to leave. Riem then left the store.
10 Vicari and Riem got back into the car, which was now being driven by Grubisic. Shortly after this, you also left the store, taking the victim’s laptop computer, which was on the counter opposite the register. The theft of the laptop is also the subject of charge 1.
11 You got into the rear passenger seat of the car, which was already driving away. After a time, the car stopped and you and your co-offenders removed the stolen numberplate.
12 The knife which you used in the armed robbery has not been recovered. I understand that the knife was visible at times during the commission of the offence but was not wielded by you.
13 You were arrested and interviewed on 20 July 2012. You told police that you were at the service station and took money and cigarettes in the Pascoe Vale area, and said that you must have “threatened them or something”. You said that two other offenders were involved and that there was a fourth person who was not in the place – that person was a female of Asian appearance. You said that Linda Vicari was keeping watch and that you were severely drug-affected. You told police you had a drug habit at the time and did something stupid and that from your recollection you were driving. You said that you were the first one to enter the store and that you thought there was a knife, but you could not remember this. You said that if there was a knife then it was yours.
14 After this you went to get food from a pizza shop. You said the victim was an Indian male and said that, to your recollection, you went to the counter and told him to take a step back and that you ended up going through “getting money and stuff”. You told police that on that day you had used heroin and Xanax, and described your clothing. You described the clothing of two of your co-offenders.
15 As the maximum penalty reflects, armed robbery is regarded as a most serious offence. Your conduct must be denounced and a just punishment must be imposed in all of the circumstances.
16 You have a lengthy and most concerning criminal history which I will detail in a moment, and I must be concerned with the protection of the community. Further, I must place substantial weight on general deterrence in a bid to deter others from being tempted to behave as you have. Also, because of your appalling criminal history, I must place significant weight on specific deterrence. I must impose a punishment that is just in all of the circumstances and also denounce your conduct.
17 Although it may be the case that you were affected by drugs at the time you committed the offence, this heightens the level of dangerousness. However, whilst you have some difficulties in recalling all of the details of your offending, there was a certain level of planning that you and your co-offenders embarked upon, in that, between you, you took the time and trouble to change the registration plates of the car before and after committing the offence and you also had arranged a lookout and getaway driver.
18 In your favour I take into account your plea of guilty which was entered at a stage when the matter was listed for trial. There had been a contested committal hearing on 23 January 2013 and you had been facing a further charge of theft from a motor vehicle. The issue of whether you had a knife was also explored as you couldn’t recall this. However, the matter resolved whilst in the trial reserve list, having been placed in there to enable discussions to take place. Notwithstanding the lateness of your plea of guilty, you are still entitled to a discount in the sentence which you would otherwise receive, such discount being not insignificant. By facilitating justice in this way you have saved the witnesses, especially the victim, the time and trauma of giving evidence and you have saved the community the time and expense of running a trial.
19 You have been in custody since your arrest. As at the plea hearing date you had been in custody for 374 days. You were sentenced in relation to another matter whilst on remand and I was told that consequently, 343 days are to be reckoned as time served in relation to the sentence which I impose. In sentencing you I have factored in the time overall that you have been in gaol since your arrest.
20 It was submitted that you are remorseful for your conduct, and you have written a letter to me, which I have considered. You went into the witness box to read the letter to me. It seems that you now desire to take on the role of a father to your two children and turn your life around. Whilst these are noble sentiments which I do hope you manage to achieve, I find it very difficult in all of the circumstances, including your appalling criminal history, and late plea of guilty to find that you have much in the way of remorse. I do factor in that a central issue at committal related to the existence and use of a knife which was something you were unable to recall. You did attempt to take greater responsibility in the record of interview in some respects than was warranted or that you needed to have – for example, saying that you entered the store first when the CCTV footage showed otherwise, and also the fact that you said that although you could not recall having a knife, if one was observed, then you would have been the one with it.
21 In view of the sentiments in your letter, which you were prepared to convey from the witness box, I am prepared to find that you do have some remorse, albeit of a limited nature. I note that in the plea before Her honour Judge Hampel you said that your health risks were an incentive to change your ways, but this did not happen. Now you say that your children are an incentive to change, but I have a degree of scepticism about this, in all of the circumstances.
22 You have a chronic drug problem which has caused havoc in your life over a lengthy period. I would have thought that in light of the sentences you have received in the past and sentencing remarks made to you, you would have appreciated that there is a definite causal connection between you taking drugs and committing offences. I put you on notice Mr Pittard, that if you continue to take drugs and offend in the future then your decision to take drugs may well be seen as an aggravating feature of your offending.
23 I take into account that you suffer from infective endocarditis, which is inflammation of the inner tissue of the heart and suffer from hepatitis C which will make time in gaol harder than for prisoners without these conditions
24 Mr Farrington told me that upon your release from jail you are likely to be under the scrutiny of not only the Adult Parole Board but also the Department of Human Services. You have become involved because of protection issues concerning your children, which is not surprising. Whilst these bodies will offer supervision when considered ready for release from gaol, I must place appropriate weight on all relevant considerations.
25 You have a most extensive and concerning criminal history, as follows:
On 17 July 2001 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of the following offences
· one charge of possess regulated weapon;
· one charge of possess property being proceeds of crime;
· one charge of use heroin;
· one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence;
· traffic heroin, as well as possess heroin, possess cannabis and possess another drug of dependence.
In relation to these matters you were convicted and placed on a community based order for six months and were required to undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol or drug addiction and perform 100 hours community work.
On 29 August 2002, you were dealt with for failing to comply with the community-based order of which you were convicted and discharged.
On that day, you were convicted of the following:
· one charge burglary;
· six charges of theft;
· four charges of going equipped to steal or cheat;
· two charges of attempted theft;
· one charge of attempted burglary;
· one charge of handling or receiving stolen goods;
· one charge of being in possession of property being proceeds of crime;
· one charge use heroin;
· one charge possessing controlled weapon without excuse;
· one charge of attempting to utter a forged prescription for a drug of dependence;
· one charge of fraudulently altering a prescription and making a false document;
· one charge of possession of heroin and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence which was not named;
· two charges of failing to answer bail.
In relation to these matters, you were sentenced to an aggregate term of 90 days’ imprisonment in combination with a community-based order for 15 months requiring that you perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12 months and requiring you to undergo assessment and treatment for drug addiction as well as undergoing assessment and treatment for any medical or psychological condition.
On 24 February 2004 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were dealt with for breaching the community-based order which had been imposed only six months before and you were re-sentenced in relation to all of the matters to which I have just referred. You were sentenced to one month’s imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months. At that same hearing, you were dealt with for the following matters:
· three charges of theft;
· one charge of stating false name when requested and stating false address when requested;
· one charge of failing to answer bail;
· two charges of trafficking heroin;
· one charge of dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime;
· one charge of forging a prescription for a drug of dependence;
· one charge of possessing an Australian passport issued to another;
· one charge of wilfully defacing an Australian passport;
· one charge of attempting to commit an indictable offence.
In relation to these matters, you were convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment which was to be served cumulatively upon any uncompleted term owed to the State Parole Board. A non-parole period of six months was imposed and it was noted that you may be at risk in custody due to your heroin addiction, such that all reasonable assessment and supervision was to be conducted to ensure your safety.
On 6 April 2004 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of theft of a motor vehicle and going equipped to steal or cheat and an aggregate term of three months' imprisonment was imposed – this was expressed to be concurrent with other State sentences being served prior to that day but cumulatively upon any uncompleted term owed to the State Parole Board.
On 30 April 2004, you were convicted at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court of the following offences:
· two charges of theft;
· possession of property being proceeds of crime;
· use heroin and possess heroin;
· state false name when requested;
· two charges of going equipped to steal or cheat.
You were sentenced to an aggregate of three months' imprisonment which again was expressed to be concurrent but cumulatively upon any uncompleted term owed to the State Parole Board.
On 21 July 2004 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were dealt with for theft of a motor vehicle and state false name when requested. In relation to the theft charge, you were convicted and sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment concurrent with any uncompleted term owed to the State Parole Board.
On 16 February 2005 in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, you were dealt with for theft, possession of and use of heroin, unlicensed driving and failing to answer bail. You were convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for four months. You were also dealt with by way of fine for stating a false name when requested and stating a false address when requested. In relation to these two matters, you were fined but that fine was varied on 19 July 2005 such that you were required to perform 15 hours unpaid community work.
On 16 August 2006 in this Court, you were convicted and sentenced in respect of one charge of armed robbery. The criminal history report indicates that you were sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months; however, the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Hampel indicate that she sentenced you to two years six months with a non-parole period of 12 months. I was referred to her Honour’s sentencing remarks in the course of the plea before me and I shall return to these a little later on.
(10) On 7 September 2006 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were dealt with for breaching the suspended sentence of 16 February 2005 and that term was restored, requiring you serve a term of one month’s imprisonment.
(11) On 7 September 2006 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were dealt with for trafficking heroin, dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime, failing to answer bail, two charges of theft and one charge of stating a false name when requested. On that occasion, you were convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of six months' imprisonment, expressed to be concurrent with other sentences imposed that day. The six months sentence was partially suspended such that you were required to serve three months' imprisonment and the balance was suspended for an operational period of 12 months.
(12) On 5 December 2006 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of robbery and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three months. On that day you were also dealt with for failing to comply with the community-based order imposed on 19 July 2005. You were sentenced to three days’ imprisonment for this.
(13) On 5 November 2008, you were dealt with at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for the following offences:
· 24 charges of obtaining property by deception;
· one charge of attempted theft and three charges of theft;
· three charges of attempting to obtain property by deception;
· one charge of possession of heroin and one charge of using heroin as well as a road traffic offence.
On that occasion, you were convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of one year’s imprisonment and directed to serve a non-parole period of six months.
(14) On 15 April 2011, you were convicted of the following offences in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court:
· one charge of attempted theft;
· two charges of burglary;
· one charge of trafficking heroin;
· careless driving, and other traffic offences;
· two charges of going equipped to steal or cheat;
· two charges of possessing a controlled weapon without excuse;
· possession of heroin and three charges of possession of a drug of dependence being a prescription drug;
· one charge of dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
You were convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of 13 months' imprisonment on that occasion and no pre-sentence detention was declared.
26 On my reckoning, you committed the armed robbery for which I sentence you about three weeks after you would have been released from jail in respect of this last mentioned matter.
27 I now turn to the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Hampel on 16 August 2006. On that occasion, she sentenced you and a co-offender in relation to an armed robbery committed in January of that year at a convenience store in the Melbourne CBD. On the occasion that you committed that offence, you had arranged for your girlfriend at that time to call a taxi and wait for you and your other co-offender in order to be able to get away after committing the crime. This aspect of the offending bears some similarity to the current offence. In relation to the previous armed robbery in 2006, although you did not produce a knife on that occasion, you admitted that you knew that your co-offender would have a weapon and it was accepted on your behalf, that in such circumstances you had an equal role to that of your co-offender, Mr Sugay.
28 On that occasion, you leaned across the counter and tried to access money from the cash register but when the victim tried to close the drawer, Mr Sugay wielded the knife and demanded the money in a very aggressive manner. He also deterred him from activating the store alarm. You and Mr Sugay took about $400 from the till and escaped in the taxi which was waiting for you with your girlfriend inside. As Her Honour, Judge Hampel, observed, there was a degree of planning and pre-planning in relation to that offending. However, it was somewhat amateurish in that you were going to be detected by way of surveillance images. Again, this may bear some resemblance to the current offending-it would seem that, despite attempts to disguise the car, your attempts to prevent detection were somewhat crude. In respect of the 2006 offence, you were later apprehended and made admissions; you said you had been using drugs on the day in question – although it was not heroin as you were unable to source this at that time. So, with both armed robberies you committed you admitted you had taken drugs before committing them. The features of the armed robbery you have committed on the present occasion are not unlike those which you committed in 2006, although on the occasion before me, the planning was slightly more elaborate. On the present occasion, you were not so affected by drugs that you did not have a sense of self-preservation by having a getaway driver, a lookout and disguising the plates of the vehicle that you used to commit the offence.
29 You were 27 years old when you committed the 2006 offence and Her Honour observed that you had been on a Bru-pen-orphine program since going into custody and that you had a long and serious criminal history. She also observed that you had only been sentenced to one period of parole at that stage, albeit that you had been through a range of sentences “from rehabilitative non-custodial types to sentences of imprisonment …” [11].
30 Her Honour took into account your background at paragraphs 13 and following. Her Honour observed that you started using heroin after completing your VCE and said that your heroin use was “the reason for all of your offending …”. Her Honour took into account your work history and medical conditions, being “Hepatitis C and infective endocardosis” – a golden staph infection which affects the heart and vital organs.
31 Her Honour was told on that occasion that the “combination of the recurrence of this condition” and being in custody since February of that year as well as the fact that you were facing a charge of armed robbery which was your first offence for violence, had made you realise that you did not want to throw your life away and could not continue as you had over the last ten years. Her Honour observed that you clearly had a very powerful motivation to become drug-free and in view of all relevant matters, she found that you had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation which were better than one would expect for someone who was 27 years old with a drug history such as yours.
32 Her Honour recounted that in your record of interview on that occasion, you described to police “your feelings of panic and fear”. You were said to have some family contact with your mother being in Court on the day of the plea. You had pleaded guilty early, made full admissions and had expressed remorse. Further, it appears that her Honour regarded your drug addiction which you had from an early age as being a mitigating factor. Her Honour did so, saying, “This is not the sort of case where one can say, if ever one can, a conscious choice was made by a mature person to embark upon a life of recreational drug use and has then been led into offending behaviour by a more a conscious choice.” Her Honour went on to say that because of your disadvantaged and deprived background and the significance of your drug addiction and health problems, that at age 27, you were of an age “when many people wake up to the fact that a life of heroin is not much of a life.” [43].
33 Her Honour said that it was important for you and your co-offender to be given every opportunity “with support and assistance, to rehabilitate yourselves …” and therefore her Honour gave you the benefit of a greater than usual difference between the head sentence and non-parole period. This matter, along with the fact that Mr Sugay was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, leads me to the belief that a sentence of two-and-a-half years with a non-parole period of 12 months was imposed in your case (rather than two years with 12 months non-parole period as contained in the criminal history). Her Honour made it clear more than once in the course of her sentencing remarks that she was doing what she could to assist you in giving up heroin and other drug abuse in order to help you and in order to protect the community. I observe that the sentence which was imposed by Her Honour at that time for your first armed robbery sits within the range that the Crown has submitted appropriate for the present offence; that range was given despite the fact that after the 2006 sentence was imposed, you continued to offend, culminating in a second armed robbery where you played a more major role.
34 You did not take advantage of the leniency which her Honour extended you and following the imposition of this sentence, you continued to commit offences. One of the offences which you were convicted of after this time was the offence of robbery. On a number of occasions in the past you have been found in possession of a weapon; it must have been clear to you that taking drugs placed you at significant risk of committing further offences. Whilst Her Honour Judge Hampel found your drug addiction to be a mitigating matter at the time she imposed sentence, I am unable to do so now. Having had the benefit of an extensive parole period and the benefit of treatment whilst in jail with an apparent realisation that drug addiction was your downfall and a reason to change, you continued to take drugs and commit offences. It has not been pressed before me that your decision to take drugs before committing the armed robbery for which I sentence you is an aggravating factor, and so I will not treat your drug taking on this occasion in this way, but I do not find it to be mitigating either.
Parity
35 Whilst I bear in mind the dispositions in relation to your co-offenders, I must also bear in mind that you are the only one who has committed the offence of armed robbery which has a maximum penalty ten years higher than the offence of robbery. Ms Grubisic, who had an acquired brain injury, was dealt with in a special list in the Magistrates’ Court which deals with offenders with mental illness issues. She was released on an adjourned undertaking for 12 months, whilst Ms Vicari, who pleaded guilty to theft and robbery, was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, although this was an aggregate term as other matters were dealt with as well in her case. Their criminal histories were not as concerning as yours and obviously, Ms Grubisic had issues which affected her moral culpability.
36 On 18 June 2013, I sentenced Channa Riem, who went into the store with you, to a total effective term of 13 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. In relation to the robbery which he committed in company with you, I imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Mr Riem was sentenced on the basis that he committed a robbery, as the Crown did not allege that he knew that there was a knife which was to be used by you. In sentencing Mr Riem, I had regard to the sentences of Ms Grubisic and Ms Vicari although, as I set out in paragraphs 38 and 41, there were matters which placed Mr Riem in a more serious category than either of these offenders.
37 Mr Riem had committed the offence with you whilst he was on bail and on parole, which aggravated his offending, albeit that he committed a robbery. Mr Riem has a most serious criminal history which I took into account. He has committed four armed robberies and one attempted robbery, apart from other offences, some of which were for violence. A relevant matter to be factored in when sentencing Mr Riem was that he was undergoing a sentence and therefore, unlike your situation, I had to factor in that he would have to undergo a total of one year, two months and 20 days because of cancelled parole. Therefore, totality was a strong consideration in his case.
38 In sentencing you, I bear all of these matters in mind and although parity is not completely irrelevant, there are a number of matters which distinguish your position from your co-offenders. I have factored these matters in when sentencing you.
39 I take into account your background, part of which was expressly relayed to me by your counsel and part of which was referred to me as being contained in Judge Hampel’s sentencing remarks. You were born in Australia to a mother of Indonesian background and you have had no contact with your father since your birth. Your mother re-partnered when you were young and had another child, who is five years younger than you. By the time you were seven, her relationship with your stepfather had ended and your mother brought you up on her own. You had a transitory existence during your early years which meant that your schooling and life generally were disrupted. When a teenager, things became more stable. However, you did not get on well with your mother and you left home. You continued to attend school, working part time to support yourself. You completed your VCE over a two year period. However, you obtained poor results. You had hoped to become an architect. However, your results fell short of this ambition.
40 Shortly after completing your VCE, you commenced heroin use and have abused drugs ever since. For a time you were able to sustain employment, working for a number of years as a bank teller, a plasterer and telemarketer as well as other areas of employment. However, your drug addiction reached a stage where you were no longer able to work. You are the father of two children – one of whom is two-and-a-half and the other is six months’ old. The mother of both children is your co-offender, Linda Vicari. The children live with your mother.
41 As previously mentioned, you have Hepatitis C and infective endocardosis which is a life-threatening condition if left untreated, and is more serious each time it recurs. The condition is likely to recur if you continue to use drugs. As I have said, I take into account these conditions in sentencing you and that your time in gaol will be harder than for someone not affected by these conditions.
42 When you came before Judge Hampel, your resolve to cease drug use and therefore rehabilitate generally was said to be motivated by the realisation of the dangers to your physical health. However, you have continued to abuse drugs and offend and now you come before the Court saying that your resolve to cease drugs and to rehabilitate is motivated by your wish to be a father to your two children.
43 I take into account your expressions of concern for your children and your wish to be a father to them. However, at the time that you committed the offence for which I sentence you, you were already a father and you and the mother of that child chose to imbibe drugs and commit an armed robbery. You now have a second child and while it is my sincere hope that you do become a decent and law-abiding parent, I am afraid that I can only rate your prospects of rehabilitation as being grim.
44 I have concerns for the protection of the community and I must place significant weight upon this consideration in sentencing you. Also, I must place significant weight on specific deterrence and the need to deter others from offending as you have.
45 The Crown submitted that an appropriate sentencing range in your case was between two to three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of between 12 and 18 months. I was not convinced that such a range was appropriate in your case and sought further assistance from the Crown as to current sentencing practice and an appropriate sentencing range. I was provided with some authorities and further submissions at the further plea hearing. The submissions were essentially concerned with parity as between you and your co-offenders and current sentencing practice. I have had regard to the authorities which have been provided to me by the Crown and I have also had regard to a number of other cases in a bid to gain some guidance as to current sentencing practice. I have also had regard to the sentencing snapshot, although statistics are of limited utility because of the variables involved in every case.
46 In your particular case, I must take into account that a previous sentence of two-and-a-half years (or two years) with a non-parole period of 12 months was not sufficient to deter you from you taking an even more serious role in the case before me, notwithstanding that on the last occasion you were said to be on an equal footing with the offender wielding the knife. You were given the benefit of a lengthy parole period, to no avail. Interestingly, in relation to Mr Riem’s case, the prosecution submitted that a sentencing range of three to four years with a non-parole period of two to three years was warranted, in addition to the sentence that he was presently undergoing. In that case, I decided that the sentencing range was too high in view of the totality principle, and other relevant matters. As I have already said, Mr Riem was being dealt with for robbery in contrast to your situation.
47 In the end, I am of the view that I cannot do justice to all relevant sentencing principles without imposing a sentence which exceeds the Crown range. I regard the Crown range as more akin to a sentencing range for an offender who has committed armed robbery for the first time and who does not have significant prior convictions. The sentencing range does not serve to recognise the disparity between your offending and that or your co-offenders-in particular, Mr Riem.
48 Stand up please, Mr Pittard.
49 In relation to Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment and I direct that you serve two and a half years before becoming eligible for parole. If not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to five-and-a-half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years seven months.
50 I declare that you have already served 367 days in custody which will be reckoned as already served.
51 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act 1991, if not for pleas of guilty, the Total Effective Sentence would have been 5 years 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years 7 months.
Ancillary orders
52 I make an order for compensation in that you pay the sum of $700.00 to Jibrail Naveed.
0
0
0