CRIMES - armed robbery - service station in early hours of the morning - mental health issues - voluntarily confessed to police - assistance - too serious to be dealt with by ICO
Solicitors: Ms L Hanshaw, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):
2022/86751
Publication restriction:
No
Judgment
The offender appeared before a Magistrate at the Local Court at Wagga Wagga on 28 September 2022 and pleaded guilty to one charge, namely:
That he on 25 March 2022 in Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales being armed with an offensive weapon, namely an object resembling a firearm, robbed Belinda Simpkin of $120 the property of Coles Express Service Station.
The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 8 December 2022 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. There is another matter which entitles the offender to a further numerical discount which I will address later in these remarks.
In addition to the one substantive charge the offender asks that in sentencing in respect of the charge of Armed Robbery I take into account one matter on a Form 1 document, namely a charge of Possess Knife in a Public Place, contrary to s 11C(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988. I will need to apply the principles enunciated in the The Attorney General’s Application…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Ambler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ambler [2022] NSWDC 627
Case
[2022] NSWDC 627
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Ambler, the defendant stood trial for his involvement in an armed robbery at a service station during the early hours of the morning. The defendant, who had a history of mental health issues, voluntarily confessed to the police, which led to his apprehension and subsequent trial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal and sentencing responses to this case, given the defendant’s confession and his mental health background.
The central legal issues the court had to address involved the voluntariness of the defendant's confession and the impact of his mental health on his criminal responsibility and sentencing. The court needed to consider whether the confession was made voluntarily and whether the defendant's mental health issues should mitigate his culpability or influence the sentencing. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the nature of the offence was too serious to be dealt with by the Intermediate Court.
The court examined the voluntariness of the defendant's confession by assessing the circumstances under which it was made, including the defendant's mental state and the conduct of law enforcement during the interrogation. The court found that the confession was voluntary and therefore admissible as evidence. Regarding the defendant’s mental health, the court considered its impact on his culpability and found that while it did not absolve him of responsibility, it did warrant consideration in sentencing. The court concluded that the seriousness of the offence necessitated a sentence that could not be appropriately handled by the Intermediate Court.
In its final orders, the court sentenced the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offence, the defendant's confession, and his mental health issues. The court delivered a sentence that it deemed appropriate, providing detailed reasoning for its decision in paragraphs [93] to [97].