R v Henson - [2019] NSWDC 846

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Henson [2019] NSWDC 846
Hearing dates: 6 November 2019
Decision date: 06 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of six years 2 months with a non parole period of three years 11 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Armed robbery – Assault with intent to rob while armed - possess shortened firearm
SENTENCING - relevant factors on sentencing - early guilty plea- multiple but related offences - drug use –drug debts not duress– remorse - victim harm and vindication - application of sentencing guidelines.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37: (2013) 249 CLR 571
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Z (2005) 2 AC 467
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365
Category: Sentence
Parties: Travis Henson (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (for the offender)
Ms Lasschuit (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2018/00395685

sentence – Ex tempore Revised

INTRODUCTION

Born in 1991, Travis Henson is no stranger to the courts. He has committed a number of other offences and received the benefit of bonds or suspended sentences with conditions he engage in counselling and rehabilitation programmes. On 23 December 2018 he committed three offences that were so serious he must be sent to gaol for a considerable time.

THE OFFENDING FACTS

At about 9pm on 23 December 2018, Mr Simonovski and his wife arrived to work as cleaners at a medical practice in Dapto. At about 9.45pm Mrs Simonovski walked out the back to have a cigarette. Soon after she went back inside there was a knock at the door.
Mr Simonovski mistakenly thought his wife had been locked outside. He opened the door. He was confronted by a man holding a shortened rifle. The man was wearing a black balaclava and a blue and white motorcycle helmet. The man was also wearing a black jumper which was inside out, light blue jeans and black gloves.
Mr Simonovski was hit with the butt of the firearm. He was pushed into the building. The firearm was pointed at him. A demand was made for money. Mr Simonovski responded; “There is nothing here”. Mrs Simonovski then came from another room and saw what was happening. She started to scream. The offender said; “We’re going to the pharmacy.” He pointed the firearm at Mr Simonovski and directed him to walk to the pharmacy that adjoins the medical centre. As he gave further Mr Simonovski, who indicated that the pharmacy was still open to the public.
The offender told Mrs Simonovski; “You sit there and don’t move”.…

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 Henson

Details

AGLC: R v Henson [2019] NSWDC 846
Case: [2019] NSWDC 846
Decision Date: 06 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Henson involved the defendant, Henson, who was convicted of armed robbery and assault with intent to rob while armed with a shortened firearm. Henson had committed these offences while under the influence of drugs and was motivated by drug-related debts. The case came before the court for sentencing, where Henson had entered an early guilty plea. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account various relevant factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offences, Henson's early guilty plea, his drug use, and the harm caused to the victims. Additionally, the court considered Henson's remorse and the need for vindication of the victims.

The court recognised that Henson's early guilty plea and remorse were mitigating factors in the sentencing process. However, the court also had to consider the severity of the offences and the harm caused to the victims. The court noted that the offences were multiple but related, and Henson had been armed with a shortened firearm during the commission of the crimes. Furthermore, the court determined that Henson's drug use and drug-related debts did not constitute duress and could not be considered as mitigating factors. In addition, the court held that Henson's lack of remorse for the harm caused to the victims was a significant aggravating factor in the sentencing process.

After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of six years and two months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years and eleven months. The court emphasised the need for Henson to be held accountable for his actions and to provide vindication for the victims. The court also stressed the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community from further criminal activity by Henson. In light of the court's reasoning and findings, the final orders of the court were that Henson be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of six years and two months, with a non-parole period of three years and eleven months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of six years 2 months with a non parole period of three years 11 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Henson [2019] NSWDC 846
Hearing dates:	6 November 2019
Decision date:	06 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of six years 2 months with a non parole period of three years 11 months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Armed robbery – Assault with intent to rob while armed - possess shortened firearm SENTENCING - relevant factors on sentencing - early guilty plea- multiple but related offences - drug use –drug debts not duress– remorse - victim harm and vindication - application of sentencing guidelines.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37: (2013) 249 CLR 571 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25 Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Z (2005) 2 AC 467 Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Travis Henson (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (for the offender) Ms Lasschuit (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2018/00395685