Legal Research
Cases
R v Coe; R v Singh

R v Coe; R v Singh

Case [2020] NSWDC 828 24 November 2020

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Imprisonment

Sentencing

Multiple offences

Intensive correction orders

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 828
Hearing dates: 19 November 2020
Date of orders: 24 November 2020
Decision date: 24 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Coe – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
Singh – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years to be served by way of ICO

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Dangerous weapon
CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception
CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain property by deception
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Totality re existing offences
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Non-parole period
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Er v R [2018] NSWCCA 286
Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
McNaughton v R [2006] NSWCCA 242
Muldrockv The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Richard Coe (Offender)
Shyarlm Singh (Offender)
Representation:
Michael Belcher (Crown)
Manal Bahsa (solicitor for the Offender - Coe)
Tony Evers (counsel) (Offender – Singh)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Pinnacle Legal Group (Coe)
The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre (Singh)

File Number(s): 2019/00220923 (Coe)
2019/00220830 (Singh)

REVISED JUDGEMENT

Introduction

These are sentence proceedings for Richard Coe and Shyarlm Singh. The offenders appeared for trial before me sitting as a judge alone presented upon an indictment which alleged four offences. The first of those, Count 1, contrary to s 87(2) Crimes Act 1900, alleged that they:

“On 7 July 2019, at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales, did rob SY of certain property, namely, an iPhone 7, $25 AUD and a Commonwealth Bank card the property of SY whilst being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a hand gun.”

Counts 2, 3 and 4 were contrary to s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. These alleged:

Count 2:

“On 7 July 2019 at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales…

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 Coe; R v Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 828
Case: [2020] NSWDC 828
Decision Date: 24 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Coe and R v Singh involved two defendants, Coe and Singh, who were convicted of various criminal offences, including armed robbery and fraud. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of their respective crimes, as well as various sentencing considerations such as the totality principle and the need to reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court was also required to consider relevant factors such as the defendants' backgrounds, the impact of their crimes on victims, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate aggregate sentences for both defendants, the determination of non-parole periods, and the consideration of special circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to balance the cumulative effect of multiple offences, the principles of totality and proportionality, and subjective factors such as the defendants' ages, backgrounds, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the submissions from both the prosecution and defence regarding the appropriate penalties and the suitability of non-parole periods.

The court thoroughly evaluated the pre-sentence reports and the submissions from both parties. It acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, particularly the armed robbery involving a dangerous weapon and the multiple instances of fraud. The court considered the totality principle, which requires that the aggregate sentence should reflect the overall criminality of the defendant's conduct. In reaching its decision, the court gave weight to the defendants' ages, their potential for rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Coe to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, and Singh to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO).

In summary, Coe was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. Singh was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, to be served by way of an ICO. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, considering the gravity of the crimes, the defendants' backgrounds, and the principles of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Coe – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months

Singh – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years to be served by way of ICO

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 828

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Foaiaulima v R
[2020] NSWCCA 270 Para 42

…Counsel for Coe brought to my attention a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 in which Rothman J found error when the sentencing judge dealt with the question of objective seriousness and the range of sentences available in two stages, first considering the issue by reference t…
R v Coe; R v Singh
[2020] NSWDC 567 Para 63

…ubt that the item was a dangerous weapon according to the law and was the item used to the knowledge of the accused Singh.” 1. R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 567 at [63]…
Er v R
[2018] NSWCCA 286 Para 151

…The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Er v R [2018] NSWCCA 286 was a case concerned with a group of people involved in a break, enter and steal in which the roles were distributed. They were charged as participants in a joint criminal enterprise. I took the view at first instance that the offender should b…
Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 146

…hat his moral culpability in the commission of this offence is reduced and I am reminded of the judgement by Johnson J in the decision of Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 at pp 112 to 115. I accept the history of mental illness extends well back into his childhood. No other finding is available, in my view, when I cons…
Xiao v R
[2018] NSWCCA 4 Para 18

…re) Act 1999 and guidance provided by the Court of Criminal Appeal, including with regard to commonwealth offences following the decision in Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4, I am of the view that one of two approaches might be taken.…
Munda v Western Australia
[2013] HCA 38 Para 148

…Although he does not have profound childhood deprivation such as was considered in Bugmy v R ibid and in Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 yet he has his challenges and they are of such moment that they would always be relevant to the determination of punishment whenever he would come before a Cou…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 99

…ccept that moral culpability has been reduced by reason of the matters described in the psychologist’s report and upon the application of Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37. He has suffered disadvantage almost from birth, not as a consequence of living in a domestic circumstance replete with drunkenness, gambling and drug…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39

…0 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 McNaughton v R [2006] NSWCCA 242 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Category…
R v McNaughton
[2006] NSWCCA 242 Para 97

…habilitation potential. I have already indicated I intend to begin the sentence today. I am reminded of the statements of principle of McNaughton v R [2006] NSWCCA 242 and the relevance of the criminal record. I am reminded of the need not to double count with consideration of the Henry guideline judgement and other…
Callaghan v R
[2006] NSWCCA 58 Para 20

…the commission of these further offences. Nonetheless, in accordance with the discretion available to me, as discussed by Simpson J in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 I should specify a starting date for his sentence to allow for appropriate concurrence and accumulation with the existing sentence to ensure, first,…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…R [2018] NSWCCA 286 Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 McNaughton v R [2006] NSWCCA 242 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 Te…
R v Street
[2005] NSWCCA 139

…of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Richard Coe (Offender) Shyarlm Singh (Offender) Representation: Michael Belcher (Crown) Manal Bahsa (solicitor for the Offend…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 107 Para 42

…bjective seriousness and the range of sentences available in two stages, first considering the issue by reference to the Henry guideline judgement[2] [1999] NSWCCA 107, and then separately considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances over and above those which were discussed in the guideline judgement. Bathu…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111

…011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Richard Coe (Offender) Shyarlm Singh (Offender) Representation: Michael Belcher (Crown) Manal Ba…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 828
Hearing dates:	19 November 2020
Date of orders:	24 November 2020
Decision date:	24 November 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Coe – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months Singh – aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years to be served by way of ICO
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Dangerous weapon CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception CRIME — Fraud — Dishonestly obtain property by deception SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Totality re existing offences SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Pre-sentence reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Age of offender SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Non-parole period SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Er v R [2018] NSWCCA 286 Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270 Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 McNaughton v R [2006] NSWCCA 242 Muldrockv The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Richard Coe (Offender) Shyarlm Singh (Offender)
Representation:	Michael Belcher (Crown) Manal Bahsa (solicitor for the Offender - Coe) Tony Evers (counsel) (Offender – Singh) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Pinnacle Legal Group (Coe) The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre (Singh)
File Number(s):	2019/00220923 (Coe) 2019/00220830 (Singh)