R v Cummins

[2018] NSWDC 442

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Cummins [2018] NSWDC 442
Hearing dates:	15 June 2018
Date of orders:	29 June 2018
Decision date:	29 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	See [88]
Catchwords:	CRIME – robbery – aggregate sentence – totality
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Ionatana v R [2008] NSWCCA 95 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown Paul Cummins (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: B Robinson (Offender)   Solicitors: ODPP (Crown) Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/303518
Publication restriction:	None

Remarks on Sentence

Introduction

1. The offender appears before the Court today for sentencing after pleading guilty to the charges on the Crown Sentence Summary.

The Charges

2. The first charge for which the offender is to be sentenced is that on 9 October 2016 he assaulted Arie Broekhuizen with intent to take a motor vehicle and took over motor vehicle, namely a silver Holden Commodore without the consent of the owner, in breach of s154C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

3. The second count relates to an event that occurred on the same date, 9 October 2016, at which time the offender robbed Jerome San Juan of certain property, namely $4,444 in cash being the property of J R Enterprises Pty Limited trading as Crocodile Farm Hotel whilst armed with an offensive weapon namely a knife, in contravention of s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

4. Attaching to the second count is a Form 1 matter, namely robbery armed with an offensive weapon. I have signed the Form 1 document certifying that the matter will be taken into account in sentencing in relation to the second count.

5. The third count is that on 10 October 2016, the offender stole a Toyota Hiace Van, the property of Mamata Pty Limited, in contravention of s154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

6. The fourth and final count is that on the same day, namely 10 October 2016, the offender robbed Marina Strougaris of certain property, namely $700 in cash, the property of Australia Post trading as the Ashfield Post Office whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, in contravention of s97(1) of the Crimes Act.

7. Attaching to count 4 are two further charges of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. I have signed the Form 1 document relating to those additional charges certifying that they have been taken into account in the sentencing process.

Guideposts

8. The maximum penalties, of course, provide at least a starting point for guideposts in relation to what is an appropriate sentence. The maximum penalty for assault with intent to take/drive a motor vehicle is ten years. The offence has a standard non-parole period of three years. The maximum penalty for robbery armed with an offensive weapon is 20 years. There is no standard non-parole period applicable. The maximum penalty for take and drive a conveyance without consent is five years without there being any non‑parole period applicable.

9. I have already mentioned the Form 1 matters and confirm that they will be taken into account.

Procedural History

10. The offending was committed on two consecutive days, namely 9 and 10 October 2016. The offender was arrested and charged on 11 October 2016. On 8 March 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to the offences and was committed for sentence in the District Court. The offender has been in custody since 11 October 2016. This was due to the fact that the offender was on parole for previous offences at the time of commission of the subject offences.

Evidence

11. The evidence on sentence for the Crown comprised:

1. the Crown Bundle (Exhibit A); and

2. the Agreed Facts in relation to the related offences (Exhibit B).

12. The evidence on sentence for the offender comprised:

1. a report by Dr Richard Furst, psychiatrist, dated 9 June 2018 (Exhibit 1);

2. certificates of programs completed whilst in custody (Exhibit 2);

3. a statement of Martin Mclea, a friend of the offender (Exhibit 3);

4. discharge summary from Fremantle Hospital dated 11 April 2007 (Exhibit 4);

5. a discharge summary from Concord Hospital dated 27 July 2010 (Exhibit 5);

6. a discharge summary from Concord Hospital dated 3 September 2012 (Exhibit 6) and;

7. the offender’s Submissions on Sentence (MFI 1).

Agreed Facts

13. In relation to the first count, on Sunday 9 October 2016, the complainant and his wife were in a vehicle being a silver Holden Commodore. The complainant had reclined in his seat while the passenger, his wife, remained in the passenger seat reading a newspaper. The driver’s window was open and the vehicle’s keys were left in the ignition.

14. At this time, the offender approached the driver’s door and said, “Get out of the car”. The complainant did not react. The offender then said, “If you don’t get out of the car, I’ll shoot you”. The complainant and his wife then got out of the vehicle. The offender then sat in the driver’s seat and drove the vehicle away.

15. The complainant described the offender as wearing dark coloured pants, light grey or blue long sleeved top and a black mask around his face. The complainant did not see the offender’s hands or whether or not the offender was holding anything like a weapon. The value of the vehicle which was taken by the offender was approximately $5,000.

16. In respect of count 2 to which the first Form 1 matter attaches relates to an armed robbery on 9 October 2016. The offender drove the aforementioned vehicle to licensed premises known as the Crocodile Farm Hotel located at Liverpool Road, Ashfield. The offender parked the vehicle at the rear of the hotel. At about 2.30pm, he walked into the hotel and entered the gaming area. He approached a staff member, Jerome Juan and said, “Give me the money”. Mr Juan said, “What” and the offender and the offender said, “I’ve got a knife”.

17. The offender walked towards the main bar area where the manager, Christopher Redford, was behind the bar. The offender said, “Open the till”. Redford said, “No”. The offender pulled out a knife to shoulder height facing towards Redford and yelled, “Open the Keno register”. Redford described the knife as having a silver blade. It was about 10 centimetres long with a unique shaped blade. There was about $5,000 in the Keno register.

18. While Redford was opening the till, the offender walked back into the gaming area. Mr Juan walked back to the gaming area. The offender pulled a knife from his pocket and held it by his side. Mr Juan described the knife as being 20 centimetres long with a silver blade.

19. The offender slapped Mr Juan on the forehead. Mr Juan then opened the till and the offender took all of the notes inside the till totalling approximately $4,444. That offence was captured on CCTV taken from the Crocodile Farm Hotel which showed the offender wearing dark coloured pants, black shoes, a hooded jacket and a black cap. The film also shows the offender getting into the silver sedan and driving away.

20. The circumstances in relation to the third count are as follows. On Monday, 10 October 2016 at about 1.30pm, the complainant Wares Mahmud drove a vehicle being a white Toyota Hiace Van to Canterbury Leagues Club in Belmore. The complainant was a courier and at the time was making a delivery at the location. He stopped the vehicle in the loading dock area whilst he delivered a package on foot to a person in the loading dock. At the time, their vehicle was left unlocked with the key in the ignition. The offender approached the vehicle, got into the driver’s seat and drove the vehicle away. The vehicle’s valued at approximately $12,000.

21. The following circumstances relate to the fourth count, namely robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon with the complainant being Marina Strougaris. I should also note that there are two further victims of this offending, namely a Ms Johnson and a Mr Vuong both who were employed at and worked at the Ashfield Post Office where the offending took place. The latter two victims are the subject of charges on the Form 1 document previously referred to.

22. The Ashfield Post Office is located on Level 4, Liverpool Road, Ashfield. The store is within a shopping complex known as the Ashfield Mall. On the date stated at about 3.30pm, the offender entered the post office. At the time of the offence, there were a number of customers in the shop. The offender walked to the main counter area and climbed over into the staff area.

23. Staff member, Strougaris said, “You’re not allowed back here”. The offender faced staff member Voung and removed a knife from the right pocket of his pants. The witnesses described the knife as being a large kitchen knife measuring between 17 and 30 centimetres in length. The offender said, “Give me your money” and Vuong opened the till and handed the offender money from the till. The amount was $450. The offender then turned to Strougaris and said, “Give me the cash”. Strougaris said, “No”. The offender then steps in closer to Strougaris and pointed the knife at her and said, “Give me your cash”. Strougaris agreed and opened the till. The offender put the knife into his pants pocket and went to another till. He hit the top of the counter and said, “Open this one”. The offender said to Strougaris, “Give me the cash” and she gave him about $700.

24. The offender then walked to another till, took the knife out of his pocket and approached Ms Johnson. He held the knife about 7 centimetres away from her and removed cash from the open till. He turned back to Strougaris who handed him the cash she had removed from her till.

25. The offender then jumped back over the counter and left the store. He stole approximately $1,200. That offending was captured on CCTV footage taken at the shop. The offender was wearing black pants, a blue hooded jumper, a black cap and blue latex gloves. The knife, as stated, was described as a kitchen knife about 30 centimetres long with a black coloured plastic handle and silver blade.

26. On 11 October 2016, at about 10.30am, police found the stolen Holden Commodore outside 80 Leylands Parade, Belmore. Police maintained surveillance of the vehicle. Parked directly behind this vehicle was the stolen Toyota Hiace previously referred to. Sometime later, the offender was observed walking from the residence at Leylands Parade, Belmore. The offender walked up and down the street for some time before getting into the Toyota Hiace and driving away.

27. The offender drove to the Campsie CBD before driving to his home address at 57 Third Avenue, Campsie. He removed a package from the Toyota Hiace and walked into his residence. After some time, the offender returned to the Hiace and drove away. He drove around the streets of Campsie and Belmore for a short time before parking the Hiace in Drummond Street, Belmore.

28. The offender walked back to Burwood Road before returning to Leylands Parade at about 5.40pm. The offender approached the stolen Holden Commodore and unlocked it using an electric key. He got into the driver’s seat and started the vehicle. At this time, the police removed the offender from the vehicle. At the time, the offender was wearing black pants, a grey hooded jumper, black cap and black shoes. Those items of clothing were consistent with the clothing worn by the offender during the offences.

29. Police searched the Holden Commodore vehicle and found a kitchen knife with a black handle and a 25 centimetre silver coloured blade in the driver’s door. This knife was consistent with the knife used in a number of the offences. DNA analysis recovered from the knife produced a mixed result.

30. The offender was then conveyed to Campsie Police Station and took part in an electronically recorded interview where he denied any involvement in the offences. He stated that he could not recall his whereabouts during the time of the offences. The offender became abusive and the interview was stopped.

31. A search warrant was executed at the offender’s home. Police executed the search warrant at the offender’s home in Third Avenue, Campsie and found clothing, shoes and blue gloves consistent with the clothing worn during the offences.

Objective Seriousness

32. It is necessary, of course, to have regard to the objective features of the offending, that is the objective seriousness of the offences and the conduct of the offender. It is not, however, necessary to articulate a determination by placing the offence along the hypothetical range, although that is commonly done. The starting points, of course, are the legislative guideposts which I have already identified. Next, one has regard to the particular circumstances of the offending in assessing the overall criminality and the Court then has regard to any mitigating or aggravating features.

33. During the course of the sentence hearing, addresses were made by both counsel for the offender and on behalf of the Crown in relation to the seriousness of the offending.

34. The Crown submitted in respect of count 1 that it was below the mid-range. In respect of count 2, it was submitted given the number of victims that it was approximately in the mid-range. In respect of count 3, it was suggested that it was below the mid-range and in respect of count 4 it was submitted that it demonstrated a low level of planning, however, it was the same location as prior offending committed by the offender and was slightly above the mid‑range of seriousness of offending.

35. On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that count 1 was low range in terms of seriousness; count 2 was mid-range and count 3 was low-range. I don’t have the transcript of the proceedings on the last occasion nor do I have a note as to the submission made as to count 4.

36. In any event, having assessed the matters carefully, I have determined that the offending in relation to the first count in which the offender threatened to shoot the complainant and his wife before stealing the vehicle is approximately mid-range, if not slightly below, as submitted by the Crown.

37. In relation to the second count in which there was two victims and an amount stolen of $4,444, I consider the seriousness of the offending as being slightly below the mid-range.

38. In relation to count 3, namely taking the vehicle of a delivery driver who left the keys in his vehicle, there was no threat or harm caused to the complainant in that case and, accordingly, I consider the seriousness of the offending to be in the low-range.

39. In respect of count 4, the fact that the offender had previously robbed the same premises, whilst informative, is not relevant to determining the seriousness of the offending on this occasion.

40. It is my view that given the number of victims in relation to that offending together with a degree of planning by use of hoodie, hat and gloves, the offending falls at about the mid-range of offending for that type of offence.

41. In terms of other factors to which the Court has had regard in determining the seriousness of the offending, it is of significance that the offending involved at least the threatened use of violence in relation to the first three counts although it might be observed that in relation to count 1, the threat was that he would shoot the complainant and his wife, in relation to count 2 the threat was inferred rather than expressed by reason of the fact he was carrying a knife and in relation to count 3 there was no threat of violence or use of weapon. In relation to count 4, again, the threat was implied or inferred rather than expressed by reason of the presence of a knife.

42. I have also taken into account the offender has a record of previous convictions involving similar or the same offences. I have had regard to the emotional harm which would have been suffered by the victims of the offence.

43. I have also taken into account that the offending involved multiple victims and a series of criminal acts and it is undoubted that the offending was committed for financial gain. In fact the offender gave oral evidence on the last occasion to that effect.

44. As for mitigating factors, it is arguable that the offending did not involve any organised or planned criminal activity although I note that he was wearing gloves on at least one occasion and it seems on all occasions was wearing a cap and/or hoodie so as to disguise his appearance, that shows some small degree of planning on his part. I have also taken into account the fact that the offender has pleaded guilty.

45. Counsel for the offender emphasised that whilst violence may have been threatened on occasions, inferentially, there was no actual violence and no injury sustained by any of the victims to the offending. It was also submitted on behalf of the offender that there was only a limited degree of planning consistent with the observations I have just made.

Subjective Case

46. The subjective case of the offender requires very careful consideration. He was born in Ireland on 3 April 1977 and is now 41 years of age. I have carefully considered a report by Dr Richard Furst (Exhibit 1), who noted a history of mental illness dating back to 2003 when it is recorded that the offender suffered from psychotic symptoms. I note that he was admitted to Concord Hospital in 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2012.

47. Additionally, the offender presented himself to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in 2012 after being stabbed in the chest during a fight in a pub. The injury in that incident contributed to or aggravated his psychiatric condition.

48. The offender has been under the care of the Croydon Community Mental Health Team seeing a psychiatrist once every few months over the last several years save for the period spent in custody. I note that there is no history of mental illness in the offender’s family. Relevant to his subjective circumstances is the fact that the offender has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse together with gambling. He commenced abusing cannabis at the age of 16, continuing that into his 20s. He also abused alcohol from the age of 18, drinking excessively on most days of the week.

49. The offender did note to Dr Furst, however, that his use of cannabis and alcohol had been intermittent, being able to abstain for periods of up to two years but then relapsing when in the company of friends where he used those substances. During his 20s and 30s, the offender used party drugs, primarily ecstasy. The offender noted that he used ice on and from the age of 18 years. His gambling problem seemed to be limited to a period of between 2011 and 2014. Dr Furst, in his report, refers to the treatment which has been provided to the offender in relation to his various conditions.

50. The offender’s family circumstances are mixed. His parents are supportive although their relationship has been put under considerable strain by the offender’s conduct, in particular his drug use. His employment has been varied working as a plasterer in finance, mining as well as Kmart and also doing security work.

51. As I mentioned, Dr Furst provided a report dated 9 June 2018. He had previously seen the offender in relation to earlier offending on 5 May 2015. For the purpose of the most recent report he saw this man on 24 May 2018. I do not intend to read the report onto the record save to observe that I have given it very careful consideration.

52. I note that in terms of the offending for which he is to be sentenced today, the offender seemed in his consultation with Dr Furst to blame Centrelink for not paying him enough money when he was released from custody in March 2016 as well as delays and ultimate rejection of an application to reinstate his disability support pension leaving him short of cash and by reference to that sought to justify his offending. In his oral evidence that was also repeated.

53. I note that in 2014 there was reference in the Justice Health records to a past history of schizophrenia. It is not entirely clear whether that is a recurring or chronic condition, however, it permitted diagnosis by Dr Furst that the offender suffers from the following conditions, schizophrenia, substance use disorder and personality disorder.

46. Dr Furst expressed the following opinion:

“In my opinion, his schizophrenic illness and drug addiction are the most relevant mitigating factors on sentence, schizophrenia having an adverse effect on his mood and thinking process and his drug addiction contributing to poor life choices in general, poverty and debt which were also factors that led to his offending”.

55. While such matters may not be mitigating factors in the usual sense, they are, of course, relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion which the Court has and I note that counsel for the offender provided the Court with a decision in the matter of Ionatana v R [2008] NSWCCA 95 in which the Court emphasised the importance of a sentencing judge giving adequate regard and consideration into the mental health of the offender.

56. After completing a comprehensive report and reviewing documents from multiple sources, Dr Furst expressed the opinion that the offender will require ongoing psychiatric treatment and/or rehabilitation over the longer term. In relation to the risk of re-offending, Dr Furst considered the risk as being medium to high.

57. As I have already said, the offender gave evidence on 15 June 2018 during the course of a sentence hearing. I have read the transcript of the evidence which he gave on that occasion and I have taken that evidence into account. I note that there was a general theme in his evidence that he appeared to blame his offending on what he regarded as inefficiencies with Centrelink and other government departments which caused him to, for example, pay transport in the order of $8 when otherwise he would pay an amount of $1.50.

58. Against that, of course, once you weigh the fact that during the period of offending the offender was buying and consuming illicit drugs which caused him considerable expense in circumstances where his income through Centrelink was limited. To his credit, the offender has participated in a number of courses whilst in custody. The documents which demonstrate that fact are marked Exhibit 2 on the sentence hearing.

59. There is a certificate dated 12 October 2017 indicating completion of a course in aggression. There is a statement of attainment dated 14 June 2017 in relation to a TAFE certification of providing basic emergency life support participating in safe work practices and shifting material safely using manual handling methods.

60. There is also a credit certificate for the successful completion of a course entitled, “Men who met the Master” and a similar certificate in relation to a course, “Born to Win”. Whilst the details of those courses can only be inferred from the title of the certificates, what is clear is that the offender has in his time in custody made efforts to educate and/or rehabilitate himself.

61. I have also been provided with a statement of Mr McLea, which is Exhibit 3. The only relevance it seems to me of that document is that it is dated 21 October 2016 and states that about a week or so ago he saw the offender who appeared to be mentally ill to some degree. He stated:

“He had his head in his hands like when he has crazy thoughts. I asked him if he was okay and he said he was okay but he wasn’t okay. Paul’s mental illness started when he was in his early 20s. When he stays on his meds he seems okay”.

62. It is curious that at the time of signing the statement, the maker of the statement said that he was unaware of any armed robbery offences committed by the offender.

63. I have also considered the documents from the Fremantle Hospital in relation to an admission in January 2007. The diagnosis on that occasion was marijuana and alcohol abuse together with schizophrenia. It was noted that he was homeless at that time.

64. On 21 May 2010, the offender was admitted to the Concord Repatriation General Hospital. It was noted that he was living with his girlfriend/partner of two years and her five children. There was a long standing history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and non-compliance with medication together with drug use. He remained in the hospital from 21 May 2010 to 27 July 2010.

65. He returned to the Concord General Hospital on 13 August 2012 where he remained until 3 September 2012. The notes in respect to that admission are similar to the notes in respect of the previous condition. He was diagnosed as suffering from what was referred to as undifferentiated schizophrenia together with multiple drug use and psychoactive substances leading to a dependence syndrome.

Previous Convictions

66. It is also necessary to have regard to his previous convictions. Of course, they may be taken as aggravating factors pursuant to s21A(2)(d) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. In the matter of R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566, the Court of Criminal Appeal as a bench of five set out the principles as to how one should have regard to previous convictions without offending the principle of proportionality. I have had regard to the seven matters referred to by the Court in that decision.

67. I note that the prior offending in this case appears to be limited to three specific events. One is robbery armed with an offensive weapon comprising three counts on 5 January 2014. In respect of that offending, the offender was sentenced to a period of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of two years one month and a head sentence of four years three months. The non‑parole period expired on 19 February 2016 and he was on parole in respect of that offending when these offences were committed.

68. On the same day, that is 20 January 2014 he was also charged with on that day he stalked or intimidated or intended to instil fear and physical harm in a person. In respect of that offence he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment which was entirely concurrent with the prior offence referred to but the only other offence committed by the offender was destroy or damage property which took place on 11 October 2016. In respect of that offence, he served a period of imprisonment of one month between 14 March 2017 and 13 April 2017 when he was imprisoned in respect of other matters in any event.

Remorse

69. The question of remorse is complicated by the fact that both in his evidence and in the history provided to Dr Furst, the offender seems to blame his offending on Centrelink and other government agencies. There seems to be a lack of insight on the offender’s part into his offending and a lack of acceptance of responsibility for that offending. Whilst that may be explained by his psychiatric condition, it does not entitle him to leniency in considering the question of contrition.

Approach to Sentencing

General Principles

70. In sentencing the offender, I had regard to the purposes for which the Court may impose a sentence pursuant to s3A of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act. They are punishment, deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, accountability, denunciation and recognition of harm.

71. The need for general deterrence to be reflected by the sentence is not particularly great or alternatively expressed, this may not be the vehicle for a sentence to provide general deterrence given the significant nature of the psychiatric condition from which the offender suffers.

72. There is, however, nevertheless a need for specific deterrence particularly given his history of similar offending.

73. Undoubtedly, there is a need for the sentence to reflect a degree of punishment for the offences and for the victims involved noting that the victims are some seven in number.

74. The sentence must also achieve a degree of protection of the community from the offender. Randomly approaching people in cars and targeting a workplace in order to rob them of money causes enormous concern within the community and does not permit members of the community to be at ease in the presence of such offending so there is a degree of protection required in relation to the sentence to be imposed.

75. Rehabilitation is paramount and significant in this particular case. It is the need for rehabilitation and his re-assimilation into the community that I in a moment will find special circumstances permitting an adjustment to the statutory ratio for non-parole.

76. Accountability is also a significant factor, particularly as to date the offender seems to blame Centrelink for his offending in circumstances where he was spending money on drugs at the same time. It seems that that blame is misplaced and he ought to be made accountable for the offences which he has committed. Denunciation and recognition apply in this case as they do in most other cases.

77. The emphasis to be placed upon the various purposes of sentencing will vary according to the circumstances of each case including both the objective and subjective considerations I have already made reference to those which I consider to be relevant.

Proportionality

78. I have also had regard to the need for proportionality between the sentence and the circumstances of the multiple crimes. I have given appropriate weight, in my view, to the objective circumstances permitting the Court to engage in the process of instinctive synthesis required prior to imposing a sentence.

Section 5 Threshold

79. Before imposing a sentence which includes imprisonment, I must be satisfied having considered all possible alternatives that no other sentence including non-custodial sentences other than imprisonment is appropriate. In this case, both the Crown and counsel for the offender have conceded that a period of full time imprisonment is warranted in this case and I agree with that submission, having considered all possible alternatives.

Guilty Plea

80. I have already referred to the fact that the offender pleaded guilty in accordance with s22 of the Sentencing Act the Court must take into account that fact together with when the plea was entered as well as the circumstances in which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty. Counsel for the offender has submitted that in the circumstances which exist here given the timing of the plea of guilty that a discount on sentence for 10% is justified, I agree.

Special Circumstances

81. Counsel for the offender also submitted in relation to special circumstances. He said that they arise on four grounds comprising the following:

1. the offender requires ongoing mental health treatment. That is indisputable;

2. there is a need to complete courses in custody and whilst on parole focussing on drug addiction or, more particularly, abstinence from drugs, that is also indisputable;

3. Counsel also drew my attention to special circumstances arising by reason of the accumulation of sentences and I have had regard to that fact; and

4. it was submitted that there was a need for additional assistance upon release to re-integrate into the community. I also agree with that submission and in the circumstances I find special circumstances exist.

Consistency

82. In determining the sentence in this matter, I have had regard to the statistics which are kept by JIRS in relation to offending of this type. It is difficult to determine the weight to be given to such material as there is little information as to the nature of the offending in relation to the cases reported It is also additionally difficult in this case given the complexity of the offending, that is the number of charges and the number of victims of the offences, it is sufficient to say that I have had regard to the statistics to ensure a consistency in sentencing in respect of offences of this type.

Aggregate Sentence

83. I have also had regard to the concepts and legal principles underlying the questions of totality, concurrency and accumulation in determining what is an appropriate sentence. Having regard to the question of totality, in particular, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence and to do otherwise would impose a crushing sentence on the offender. It is also appropriate as the offending took place over a period of two consecutive days. Accordingly, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence pursuant to s53A of the Sentencing Act but, first, I am required to indicate the sentences which I would otherwise have imposed in respect of each count.

Sentence

Indicative Sentences

84. After a discount of 10% for the guilty plea, in relation to the first charge on the Crown Sentence Summary, I would but for the fact that I intend to impose an aggregate sentence having imposed a sentence of three years and seven months after the discount of 10%.

85. In relation to the second charge, namely robbery armed with an offensive weapon and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 which attaches to that charge, I would have imposed a sentence after discount of 10% of five years and four months.

86. In respect of the third charge, namely take and drive a conveyance without the consent of the owner, after a reduction by discount of 10%, I would have imposed a sentence of one year and nine months.

87. In respect of the fourth charge being robbery with an offensive weapon to which there is a Form 1 which attaches, I would but for the aggregate sentence have imposed a sentence after discount of 10% of seven years and two months.

Commencement Dates

88. I intend to backdate the sentence to 30 April 2017.

Aggregate Sentence

89. Please stand, sir. You are convicted of the seven offences set out in the Crown sentence summary and the Form 1 documents which I have described in detail in these remarks on sentence. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment and the aggregate sentence I impose consists of a non‑parole period of eight years commencing 30 April 2017 and a head sentence of 14 years. You will become eligible to be released on parole on 29 April 2025.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 February 2019