R v Dobbs

Case [2022] NSWDC 129

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dobbs [2022] NSWDC 129
Hearing dates: 22 April 2022
Date of orders: 27 April 2022
Decision date: 27 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

Orders at [61]

Catchwords:

SENTENCING – robbery armed with an offensive weapon – form 1 offences – larceny – common assault – bizarre facts – offender armed with a meat cleaver stolen earlier – low level of objective seriousness – diagnosis of schizophrenia – substance use disorder – offender not medicated – mental illness materially contributed to commission of the offences – reduced moral culpability – tension between mental illness and community safety - departure from guideline judgment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

DPP v Tennison [2020] VCC 343

Ith v R [2013] NSWCCA 280

Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162

Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244

McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106

Muldrock v The Queen 244 CLR 120

R v Anderson [1981] VR 155

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111

R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255

R v Kelso [2020] NSWDC 157

R v Stonestreet [2020] NSWCCA 212

R v Tangi (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 547

Thach v R [2018] NSWCCA 252

Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Samuel Thomas Dobbs
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Eugene Renard, Solicitor Advocate (offender)

Solicitors:
Mr Andrew Hanshaw (DPP)
Ms Jamiee Simonsen (offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00160432
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Samuel Dobbs is a bearded large man. He looks intimidating. Armed with a meat cleaver, he is terrifying.

  2. He hears voices. He is schizophrenic. He refuses to take his medication.

  3. This sentence highlights the tension between those with a mental illness and the need for community safety.

  4. The offender is to be sentenced for a single count of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, contrary to section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offender asks that I take a number of other matters into account on a form 1.

  5. The principal offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty is an important guidepost in the assessment of sentence. A sentencing judge should steer by the maximum penalty, but not aim for it.

  6. There is a guideline judgment for this offence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111. The guideline judgment is an important check, guide and indicator in the sentencing exercise: Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 at [59]. However, it is not a tramline.

Plea of guilty

  1. A plea of guilty was accepted by the Local Court Magistrate in committal proceedings for the offences. As such, Mr Dobbs is entitled to a discount for an early plea of guilty of 25% in accordance with section 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The Facts

  1. On 3 June…

Continue reading R v Dobbs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dobbs [2022] NSWDC 129
Case
[2022] NSWDC 129
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dobbs was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the respondent, Dobbs, was found guilty of multiple charges including robbery armed with an offensive weapon, larceny, and common assault. The offences were committed while Dobbs was armed with a meat cleaver which he had stolen earlier. The bizarre nature of the incident, combined with Dobbs' mental health issues, presented a complex case for sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence while considering the low level of objective seriousness of the offences, Dobbs' diagnosis of schizophrenia, and his substance use disorder. Notably, Dobbs was not medicated at the time of the offences, and the court had to assess how his mental illness materially contributed to the commission of these crimes, and whether this warranted a reduction in moral culpability.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate application of sentencing principles in light of Dobbs' mental health conditions. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the requirement to consider the impact of Dobbs' schizophrenia on his actions. The court also needed to determine whether the guideline judgment provided sufficient flexibility to accommodate the unique circumstances of the case, particularly the interplay between mental illness and community safety. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the mitigating factor of Dobbs' mental illness warranted a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines.

In reaching its decision, the court found that Dobbs' schizophrenia and substance use disorder significantly influenced his actions, albeit not excusing them entirely. The court recognised that while the offences were serious, the level of objective seriousness was low, and that Dobbs' mental health issues materially contributed to the commission of the crimes. The court also noted the tension between ensuring community safety and addressing the offender's mental health needs. Ultimately, the court decided that a departure from the guideline judgment was warranted, taking into account Dobbs' mental health conditions and the reduced moral culpability. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, providing both punishment and an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court, detailed at [61], reflect the court's careful consideration of the unique circumstances of this case. The sentence imposed aims to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the imperative to address Dobbs' mental health needs, ensuring that the sentence is proportionate to the offences committed while considering the mitigating factors present in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [61]

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.