R v Edwards

[2016] NSWDC 420

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Edwards [2016] NSWDC 420
Hearing dates:	13 December 2016
Date of orders:	13 December 2016
Decision date:	13 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Taking into account matters on a Form 1, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 18 months and a head sentence of 3 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Form 1 – Robbery – Bag Snatching – Damage property – Larceny – Offender on parole at time of offence
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Fernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58 R v Ranse unreported NSWCCA, 8 August 1994
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Lesley Edwards
Representation:	Solicitors: The Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service - Offender
File Number(s):	2015/335746

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: not all of us have the same choices in life. Some people are brought up in loving households where law‑abiding behaviour is modelled, where educational opportunities are provided and where a good work ethic is demonstrated. Other people are not so fortunate. Ms Edwards is one such person. Her decision to commence using drugs at the age of 13 and to commit offences fairly regularly over her 44 years has to be looked at in the light of her upbringing.

2. Questions of moral culpability often turn on the ability of a person to make a choice; the choice to commit a crime or the choice to not commit a crime. A person's ability to make the right choice is very much dependent on that person's upbringing.

3. Ms Edwards did not have the same ability to make the right choices that many other people in the community have. She has never known her father. She was brought up by her mother and her grandmother, but she felt ostracised by them. Her family is of Aboriginal descent, but Ms Edwards has lighter skin than her mother and grandmother. For reasons which are not easy to understand, this caused Ms Edwards' grandmother to pick on her, and make constant reference to the lightness of her skin. Not surprisingly, Ms Edwards felt this deeply. She was sexually abused by an uncleas a child.    As she grew up, she experienced even more tragedy. Her sister was viciously sexually assaulted and murdered with her body being left in the streets of Redfern.

4. Although she has described a difficult upbringing at the hands of her grandmother and mother, she felt the death of both of them deeply. She has been in abusive relationships and her husband left her for another woman. She began drinking alcohol and misusing prescription drugs at the age of 13. The various tragedies that have befallen Ms Edwards over her life have only added to the problems she faces through drug use and drug addiction.

5. Her criminal record demonstrates a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law, but, I repeat, her decision to commit crimes has to be looked at in the context of her upbringing.

6. She was serving a sentence of imprisonment for aggravated robbery. She was released on parole and went to stay with her stepfather, a man upon whom she depends and who depends upon her. Unfortunately, her stepfather's ex‑partner came over from New Zealand. There was not enough room in the flat for all three of them and so she moved in with her former partner.

7. This, she said, caused her stress, and so on the evening of her birthday, she began to use drugs again, having not used them for some time. Although Ms Edwards has referred to this as a “one off” relapse, in truth, it was not, because a week later, while clearly intoxicated through alcohol and/or drugs, and whilst significantly mentally unwell, Ms Edwards committed the offence for which I must now sentence her. She committed an offence of robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, in the following circumstances.

8. At about 7.20am on Saturday, 14 November, a woman was walking in Surry Hills carrying her handbag. The offender was standing next to her car with other people, presumably people whom she knew, sitting nearby. The lady with the handbag walked past Ms Edwards. As she did so, Ms Edwards yelled something out to her and made contact with her shoulder, as a result of which she fell to the footpath. Ms Edwards stood over her and grabbed her handbag. Not surprisingly, the woman on the ground screamed and tried to hang onto her handbag, but Ms Edwards pulled it away from her. She then walked with the bag to her car. The victim of the offence ran to a nearby housing complex and spoke to a man who called the police. The victim and that man then approached the offender, who was still nearby, but, as they did so, she got in her car and drove away. Police tried to find her but were unsuccessful.

9. The scene now moves to a few minutes later, in Redfern. There, Ms Edwards was seen to approach an unattended parked vehicle, pull windscreen wipers off the vehicle, remove the rubber trim from the driver's door, break off the rear windscreen wiper and use the blade as a lever in the gap between the boot and the driver's side door. She then walked to another car and took several items from it, including jumper leads and a number of boxes. She then went and stood near some bushes.

10. Her behaviour was observed and police were called. They found the boot of the second car open and a variety of tools and car mats on the ground nearby. Police also saw the damage to the first vehicle. A witness pointed the offender, Ms Edwards, out to them. Police could hear her yelling and moaning. When they approached, she saw her digging a hole in the garden bed. She was using the service manual from the second vehicle as a digging tool. A few metres away from her was a cardboard box containing a number of objects. These turned out to include the victim of the robbery's iPhone.

11. Eventually, two and two was put together and police realised that the person they were speaking to was the same person who had robbed the victim of her handbag earlier on. A search was conducted and everything that was stolen from the woman before was found. Ms Edwards was arrested and taken to the police station, and asked whether she wanted to be interviewed. She said that she did. She gave an account of her movements that morning but denied any involvement in a robbery.

12. As well as sentencing her for the robbery, she asks that I take into account two matters on a Form 1: damaging property (relating to damage to the cars) and larceny (relating to the things stolen from the boot of the second car).

13. As I mentioned, Ms Edwards was released from custody only relatively shortly before she committed this offence. Indeed, she was on parole at the time of this offence. It is important that I do not double count by regarding that as an aggravating circumstance and by failing to backdate the sentence to reflect the fact that her parole was revoked because of her commission of this offence. Accordingly, I will date the sentence that I will shortly impose from 14 May 2016.

14. Objectively, this is, as everyone seems to recognise, a distressingly common form of bag snatching. Such offences are serious simply because of their prevalence. In R v Ranse unreported NSWCCA, 8 August 1994, Gleeson CJ spoke about the need for the peace to be protected. People are entitled to go about their business at 7.20am on a Saturday morning without being robbed by people like Ms Edwards. Women are entitled to carry handbags with them and should be able to do so without fear that Ms Edwards, a person who was high on drugs, would push her over and then steal her handbag. It may be not the most serious form of robbery, but robbery itself, for the reasons I have just described, is a serious enough offence.

15. Ms Edwards clearly has suffered in the past from the sort of deprivation that has been spoken about in cases such as Bugmyv The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 and R vFernando (1992) 76 ACrimR 58. As I began these remarks, it has to be recognised that her moral culpability is to be assessed in the context of her background. She suffers from mental illness issues as well: paranoid delusions, auditory hallucinations and has a history of self‑harming behaviour. Fortunately, whilst she is in custody, she is being treated with antipsychotic medication, which appears to have had some substantial effect.

16. She expressed her remorse. She says that she is ashamed of what she did. I am satisfied that she has accepted responsibility for her behaviour and does understand how her criminal actions have affected the victims of it. Because of her mental illness issues, Ms Edwards is not an appropriate vehicle for a sentence which reflects a full measure of general deterrence.

17. Personal deterrence is of significant importance, though. Ms Edwards ultimately needs to take responsibility for her own actions. When giving evidence, her decision to take drugs, which was really what led to her downfall and her facing sentence today, was something that she tended to blame on others. Ms Edwards needs to understand that it is her decision whether she will take drugs or not. Ultimately, she is the only one who can look after her own interests. She is the only one who can decide whether or not she will take drugs and she must know that if she continues to make the decision that she will take drugs, then she must go to gaol again and again, and again. This is despite the circumstance that she has spent a significant part of her adult life in custody already and is really, in many respects, throwing her life away. The sentence I impose upon her does reflect a measure of personal deterrence.

18. Ms Edwards has plans for release from custody. I spoke before about her relationship with her stepfather. It is a good one. He is significantly unwell. A medical certificate lists a number of conditions from which he currently suffers. Ms Edwards gains a benefit from caring for him, too, because he looks after her in some respects, making sure that she gets to appointments and things of that nature. Clearly, there is a risk that Ms Edwards' stepfather will die in the near future whilst Ms Edwards is in custody. That is a terribly sad prospect, but it is not the fault of the Court if that comes about. Ms Edwards offended and Ms Edwards began to resume taking drugs in the full knowledge that her stepfather benefitted from, and indeed in some respects needed, her care, and yet she went ahead anyway.

19. The risk that he will, in fact, die whilst Ms Edwards is in custody is a significant circumstance which I have taken into account in her favour. She will do her time in custody harder than would otherwise have been the case because of that circumstance. It was not suggested that the hardship that he will suffer through her incarceration is exceptional. No evidence was called as to who was looking after him at the moment, so I will not proceed on the basis that he is suffering exceptional hardship from Ms Edwards' incarceration.

20. There are clearly special circumstances in this case. The most obvious one relates to the fact that this sentence is to be accumulated on the sentence for aggravated robbery after parole was revoked. But there are other special circumstances, too. The background that I have described has led to a constellation of mental health problems from which Ms Edwards suffers and she will be assisted by the Probation and Parole Service upon her release from custody. She expresses a desire to enter rehabilitation upon her release from custody. Whether that comes about or not is something that Probation and Parole Service will determine, but it will be a condition of her parole that she enters into rehabilitation if required by the Probation and Parole Service.

21. Were Ms Edwards to have had a better background, a better upbringing, the sentence I impose on her would have been much longer than the one I will now announce.

22. She is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non‑parole period of 18 months and a head sentence of three years to date from 14 May 2016. The non‑parole period will thus expire on 13 November 2017, on which day she is to be released to parole.

23. The conditions of the parole are these: she is to be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service. She is to take, without fail, all medication prescribed for her. She is to engage with drug and alcohol counselling as directed or required by the Probation and Parole Service. She is to enter and remain in residential rehabilitation if required to do so by the Probation and Parole Service and she is to attend all appointments with mental health professionals as arranged or required by the Probation and Parole Service.

**********

Decision last updated: 16 May 2017