R v Brown - [2020] NSWDC 208

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brown [2020] NSWDC 208
Hearing dates: 20 February 2020; 24 February 2020
Date of orders: 24 February 2020
Decision date: 24 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 4 months: at [43].

Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Aggravated robbery
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — In company — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Patrick Brown (Offender)
Representation:
Mr K Ng (Solicitor for the Crown)
Mr J Brock (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2017/119432

Judgment

Patrick Brown is only 43 years of age, but he has spent considerable time in custody over the course of his lifetime. In October 2018 he engaged in a spate of drug-fuelled armed robberies. He said he had been up, that is on drugs, for days. He did not really remember the offences, because the times were a blur.
The objective seriousness of all of the offences for which he pleads guilty and is to be sentenced today is significant, but it must be balanced against a very powerful and compelling subjective case very comprehensively put by Mr Brock of counsel on his behalf.
He pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, in circumstances justifying a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas.
The charges that he faces are:

H68943522 (2018/329601)

Sequence 001: Aggravated robbery contrary to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period;

Sequence 002: Robbery armed with an offensive weapon contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period;

Sequence 003: Robbery armed with an offensive weapon contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period;

Seq 004: Robbery in company contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non parole…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2020] NSWDC 208
Case: [2020] NSWDC 208
Decision Date: 24 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Brown, who was charged with multiple instances of aggravated robbery. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Brown, taking into consideration various legal issues and factors. The primary legal issues involved determining the objective seriousness of the offences, the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the subjective considerations applicable to Brown as an Aboriginal offender with a history of drug addiction and mental illness.

The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, noting that they were Form 1 offences, meaning they involved the use or threat of a weapon. The court also considered multiple offences committed by Brown, which increased the overall severity of the sentence. Aggravating factors included Brown breaching conditional liberty and committing the offences in company. Mitigating factors such as Brown not being part of a planned or organised criminal activity and entering a plea of guilty were also taken into account. Additionally, the court considered Brown’s background, including his Aboriginal heritage, drug addiction, and mental illness, which were viewed as special circumstances warranting a more nuanced sentencing approach.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for general deterrence with the specific circumstances of Brown’s case. The court ultimately decided on an aggregate term of imprisonment of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and four months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of the objective seriousness of the offences, the presence of both aggravating and mitigating factors, and the subjective considerations pertaining to Brown's background and personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 4 months: at [43].

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 Brown [2020] NSWDC 208
Hearing dates:	20 February 2020; 24 February 2020
Date of orders:	24 February 2020
Decision date:	24 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years, 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, 4 months: at [43].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Aggravated robbery SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — In company — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Patrick Brown (Offender)
Representation:	Mr K Ng (Solicitor for the Crown) Mr J Brock (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2017/119432