R v Alvarez

Case [2020] NSWDC 680


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Alvarez [2020] NSWDC 680
Hearing dates: 08 September 2020
Date of orders: 08 September 2020
Decision date: 08 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: ML Williams SC DCJ
Decision:

An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and six months to be served by way of an intensive corrections order pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: [35].

Catchwords:

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — Plea of guilty — Rehabilitation — Remorse — Unlikely to re-offend

SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — Factual basis for sentence — Maximum penalty — General principles — Multiple offences — Purposes of sentencing

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Age of offender — Bail pending sentence — Drug addiction — Mental illness

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Gadsden v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 453

R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121

R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247

Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Regina (Crown)

Patrick Alvarez (Offender)
Representation:

Mr G Gaynor (Solicitor for the Crown)

Mr J Cooper (Solicitor for the Offender)
File Number(s): 2018/317707

Judgment

  1. Patrick Alvarez, now aged 27, appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in company under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, with no standard non-parole period.

  2. Pleas were entered in circumstances in which it is common ground, attract a 10% discount for count 1 and 25% discount for count 2, for the utilitarian value of the pleas. The purposes of sentencing in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 must be taken into account, and the maximum penalty is a yardstick in the sentencing process.

  3. He served six days in custody after his arrest on 17 October 2018, before being granted bail.

  4. His co-offender, only a year younger than Alvarez, is proceeding to trial at Queanbeyan District Court next year.

  5. The first count concerns a robbery at the United Service Station at Sutton about 11.45pm on Tuesday 16 October. His co-offender opened the door of the service station and walked in wearing a black hoodie. Alvarez held the door open. As is usually the case, the offending was caught on CCTV. The co-offender approached the counter, produced a 40 centimetre knife and demanded money and cigarettes from the attendant. He handed over the till, containing $500 in Australian currency, and 31 packets of Winfield cigarettes valued at $1,200. The co-offender was yelling, “Get the money and more cigarettes.” They left, got into a car and drove south.

  6. About 3am the next day, or about three hours later, they went to…

Continue reading R v Alvarez

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Alvarez [2020] NSWDC 680
Case
[2020] NSWDC 680
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Alvarez was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the defendant, Alvarez, faced sentencing following a guilty plea to multiple offences. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the defendant's good character, plea of guilty, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, and the likelihood of re-offending. Additionally, the court had to consider the co-offenders' roles, deterrence, and the factual basis for the sentence. The maximum penalty for the offences, general principles of sentencing, and subjective considerations such as the defendant's age, bail status, drug addiction, mental illness, and whether the defendant is Aboriginal were also evaluated.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Alvarez, weighing the mitigating factors against the severity of the crimes committed. Key legal issues included the impact of the defendant's early guilty plea, his efforts at rehabilitation, and his expressed remorse. The court also had to consider the deterrent effect of the sentence, the factual circumstances of the offences, and the purposes of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court needed to address the defendant's age, his status while on bail, his drug addiction, mental health issues, and whether he identified as Aboriginal, all of which could influence the sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously evaluated the mitigating factors presented, such as Alvarez's good character, his early guilty plea, and his efforts at rehabilitation and expressions of remorse. The court recognised that these factors suggested a lower likelihood of re-offending. However, the court also considered the need for deterrence and the gravity of the multiple offences committed. Ultimately, the court determined that an intensive corrections order, as provided under section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, was appropriate. This order was seen as a balanced approach that could address the purposes of sentencing while also considering the defendant's personal circumstances.

The final order of the court was that Alvarez was to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and six months by way of an intensive corrections order. This decision reflected a comprehensive assessment of both the mitigating and aggravating factors, aiming to achieve a just outcome that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and six months to be served by way of an intensive corrections order pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: [35].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.