R v Cobb

Case [2015] NSWDC 66


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cobb [2015] NSWDC 66
Hearing dates:4 February 2015
Date of orders: 04 February 2015
Decision date: 04 February 2015
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 8 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed robbery – In company – Offender on parole at time of offence - Parity
Cases Cited: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA111; 46 NSWLR 346
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Nash Steven Cobb
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr B Campbell – The Crown
Mr M Moir – The Offender

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):2013/137497

SENTENCE

  1. HIS HONOUR: All armed robberies are serious, but some are more serious than others. I have an example of a serious armed robbery before me at the moment as I am called to sentence Nash Steven Cobb. He was convicted by a jury of one offence of armed robbery. That trial was conducted before her Honour Judge Wilson SC as she then was. As a result of her Honour’s elevation, I am to sentence Mr Cobb for what he did.

  2. While on parole and while under the effects of drugs, the offender and two other men disguised themselves and went into a hotel in Merewether. The hotel was closing for the night, but there were still a number of patrons and bar staff there. The offender had a very frightening weapon with him. It was described as a sword or machete. One of the other offenders, a man called Lane, also had a machete and the third, a man called McGee, had a large knife. Tendered in the trial, but not before me on sentence, was CCTV footage of the relevant events.

  3. The offenders turned up in a stolen car. The offender went into the hotel first with the others behind him. Once inside the offenders told those patrons and staff who remained in the hotel to lie on ground. One of the patrons, a man called Mr Sandoz, was not immediately compliant. This caused the offender to first poke him with the weapon he had, striking him with the weapon. Lane then hit the unfortunate Mr Sandoz with the machete to his neck and head and forced him onto the ground. Fortunately for Mr Sandoz and fortunately very much for the offenders including Mr Cobb, Mr Sandoz suffered only minor injuries. Another patron also resisted. He threw a glass at the perpetrators which caused Mr Cobb to throw two glasses and an ice bucket forcibly back at the patron.

  4. The offender demanded money from a young lady member of the bar staff, Ms Walker. He held the weapon that he had in his hand very close to her face. He was told that the money was in the office so he ordered her to go towards the office and demand entry. Ms Rickard, another employee, was inside the office. She opened the…

Continue reading R v Cobb

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cobb [2015] NSWDC 66
Case
[2015] NSWDC 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, Cobb, following his conviction for armed robbery committed in company. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, which the respondent argued was excessive given the circumstances and his prior criminal history. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, as argued by the prosecution, or whether it was manifestly excessive, as contended by the respondent. The court also had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that similar crimes committed in similar circumstances by similar offenders receive similar sentences. Furthermore, the court examined the impact of the respondent being on parole at the time of the offence on the sentencing process.

The court found that while the offence was serious, the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offender's circumstances, including his prior criminal history and the fact that he was on parole at the time of the offence. The court also noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such crimes, thus adhering to the principle of parity.

The court ordered that the sentence of imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of five years and a head sentence of eight years, be upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years and a head sentence of 8 years.

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.