R v Jackson - [2021] NSWDC 416

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jackson [2021] NSWDC 416
Hearing dates: 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 May 2021 (Trial)
2 July 2021 (Sentence Hearing)
Date of orders: 12 August 2021
Decision date: 12 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: R. J. Weber SC DCJ
Decision:
At para [99]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Dangerous weapon
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles — Henry principles and distinguishing features in the instant offending — Objective seriousness — Limited planning — The use of the weapon — No actual violence — Where the weapon was not proven to be a real gun — Aggravating factors — In company — Multiple victims — Subjective considerations on sentence — Social deprivation legal principles — Delay — Parity — Prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending — Special circumstances found

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51]
PH v R [2009] NSWCCA 161 at [32]
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 at [519]

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Paul Matthew Jackson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K Buckman of counsel (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms A Weir (ODPP solicitor advocate for the Crown)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill and Associate Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/223508
Publication restriction: None.

Judgment

The offender comes before the Court having been found guilty on 14 May 2021 of the offence of robbery armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a firearm or an imitation firearm. This is conduct contrary to the provisions of section 97(2) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW). It carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

The Facts Which Should be Inferred to the Jury Verdict

There was no dispute between the parties as to the circumstances of the offending.
At about 12:10 AM on Saturday 27 September 2014, the offender and his co-offender, David Dunn, entered the Royal Hotel in Richmond. At that time, Jake Manning was working behind the bar. The hotel manager, Aaron Bean, was in the public area of the bar having a conversation with Kirk Burgess, a musician who had just finished performing at the hotel. Also working in the hotel was Christopher Brien, who was employed as a security officer. There were a number of patrons at various locations inside the hotel.
About 30 minutes prior to the arrival of the offenders, Mr Bean had prepared the bar for closing by counting the takings and preparing the floats for the next day. He had put the floats’ money in till drawers, and was going to take them upstairs to lock them away in the safe when the hotel was closed later that night. In total, there were about eight cash floats behind the main bar.
At 12:11 AM, closed circuit television (CCTV) footage…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [2021] NSWDC 416
Case: [2021] NSWDC 416
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jackson was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Jackson, was charged with armed robbery for an incident where he attempted to rob a convenience store at knife point. Jackson did not cause any actual violence during the robbery, and the weapon used was later found to be a toy gun. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with determining the appropriate sentence, given the unique circumstances of the offence. The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the crime, the limited planning involved, and the use of a dangerous weapon, while also considering mitigating factors such as the lack of actual violence and the weapon not being a real gun.

The court addressed the Henry principles, which focus on the objective seriousness of the offence and its distinguishing features. The weapon's use and the fact that Jackson acted in company with another person were significant aggravating factors. However, the lack of actual violence and the fact that the weapon was not a real gun were mitigating factors. The court also considered subjective factors, including Jackson's background of social deprivation, the delay in the proceedings, the need for parity with similar cases, and Jackson's prospects for rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending. Ultimately, the court found special circumstances that warranted a reduced sentence.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and concluded that a lesser sentence was appropriate. The court emphasised the limited planning, the absence of actual violence, and the nature of the weapon used. The final orders of the court were detailed at paragraph [99], reflecting the comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors in arriving at an appropriate sentence for Jackson.

Orders

Orders of the court

At para [99]

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 Jackson [2021] NSWDC 416
Hearing dates:	6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 May 2021 (Trial) 2 July 2021 (Sentence Hearing)
Date of orders:	12 August 2021
Decision date:	12 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	R. J. Weber SC DCJ
Decision:	At para [99]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Dangerous weapon SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles — Henry principles and distinguishing features in the instant offending — Objective seriousness — Limited planning — The use of the weapon — No actual violence — Where the weapon was not proven to be a real gun — Aggravating factors — In company — Multiple victims — Subjective considerations on sentence — Social deprivation legal principles — Delay — Parity — Prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending — Special circumstances found
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51] PH v R [2009] NSWCCA 161 at [32] R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517 at [519]
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Paul Matthew Jackson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr K Buckman of counsel (Offender) Solicitors: Ms A Weir (ODPP solicitor advocate for the Crown) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ross Hill and Associate Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/223508
Publication restriction:	None.