R v Armitage - [2019] NSWDC 383

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Armitage [2019] NSWDC 383
Hearing dates: 13 June 2019
Date of orders: 13 June 2019
Decision date: 13 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years, 8 months: at [48].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Presence of child — Record of previous convictions — Victim police officer etc — Without regard for public safety — In company — Breach of conditional — Series of criminal acts
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Code (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Haddad [2002] NSWCCA 176
McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Billy Armitage (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Woods (Crown)
Mr Pearce (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/116158; 2018/311893

Judgment

Billy Armitage, who is only 26 years old, tells me that he has spent about seven years in gaol since first going into custody at the age of 12 under a control order. He appears for sentence today in relation to two separate episodes, one in 2013 and one in 2018, both of them involving use of a car as an offensive weapon to prevent apprehension by Police, along with other matters.
The two offences arising out of an incident in August 2013 lead to a charge under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 of aggravated break, enter and steal in company, carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years with a standard non-parole period of five years, and a count under s 33(b) of use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent lawful apprehension, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 years with no standard non-parole period.
The events of 11 and 12 October 2018 concern a lengthy and terrifying series of episodes involving a number of Police vehicles and injuries to Police officers, the facts of which I will deal with shortly. They lead to him facing eight further counts; first under s 51(b) of not stop in Police pursuit, which carries a maximum penalty of three years with no standard non-parole period; secondly, of using a carriage service threatening to kill under s 474 of the Criminal Code (Cth), carrying a maximum of ten years with no standard non-parole period; thirdly two further Police pursuit counts under s 51(b), as well as three further s 33(b) counts and an assault police causing actual bodily harm. There are three related offences of resisting an officer with each carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
He has been in custody since 12 October 2018 and it is conceded by Mr Pearce, counsel for the offender, that he will remain in custody for some significant period, given that the threshold under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 has been surmounted and there…

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 Armitage

Details

AGLC: R v Armitage [2019] NSWDC 383
Case: [2019] NSWDC 383
Decision Date: 13 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Armitage involved the defendant, Armitage, who was before the court on sentencing following a guilty plea to various charges. The defendant had committed a series of criminal acts in the company of others, including the presence of a child, and had breached the conditions of a previous order. The victim in this instance was a police officer, and Armitage's actions were carried out without regard for public safety. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the significance of the aggravating factors, such as the presence of a child, Armitage's criminal record, the victim being a police officer, and the disregard for public safety. The court also had to consider the mitigating factor of Armitage's early guilty plea. In assessing these factors, the court had to balance them to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court first considered the aggravating factors in detail. The presence of a child during the commission of the offences was noted as particularly serious, as was the breach of a previous order. The court also highlighted the significance of Armitage's previous convictions and the fact that the victim was a police officer, which indicated a disregard for the law and public safety. However, the court did take into account the mitigating factor of Armitage's early guilty plea, which was acknowledged as a genuine acknowledgment of guilt and an acceptance of responsibility. After weighing these factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Armitage be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years, 8 months: at [48].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Armitage [2019] NSWDC 383
Hearing dates:	13 June 2019
Date of orders:	13 June 2019
Decision date:	13 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years, 8 months: at [48].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Presence of child — Record of previous convictions — Victim police officer etc — Without regard for public safety — In company — Breach of conditional — Series of criminal acts SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Code (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Haddad [2002] NSWCCA 176 McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Billy Armitage (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Woods (Crown) Mr Pearce (Offender)
File Number(s):	2014/116158; 2018/311893