R v Law

Case [2020] NSWDC 724

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Law [2020] NSWDC 724
Hearing dates: 26 October 2020
Date of orders: 26 October 2020
Decision date: 26 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Non-parole period

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes(SentencingProcedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Weng Seng Winson Law (Offender)
Representation:

Isabelle Youssef (Crown)
Helen Shaw (Solicitor for the Offender)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/00405119

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction

  1. Weng Seng Law, who also has the name Winson, pleaded guilty in the Local Court at Central on 30 July 2020 to a charge of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, contrary to s 97(1) Crimes Act1900.

  2. The particulars of the offence are that he robbed a man named DW of $270 in Australian currency at the time he was armed with a 30 centimetre black handled kitchen knife.

Penalty

  1. The maximum penalty to which he is exposed is imprisonment for 20 years. There is no standard non‑parole period for the purposes of Part 4 Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The Plea

  1. He pleaded guilty early in this process and therefore, upon application of s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed will be discounted by 25%.

Pre-Sentence Custody

  1. He was arrested on 26 December 2019 and has been in custody ever since, and therefore, the sentence I impose will commence on that day.

The Facts

  1. The facts are that about 11.45pm on Wednesday 25 December 2019 the victim left a friend’s home in Canterbury and walked to Sydenham Road. About midnight he continued to walk along Sydenham Road towards Livingstone Road. He entered Marrickville Park and in the park stopped and sat on a hill to smoke a cigarette.

  2. About 12.10am, in the early morning of 26 December 2019 the offender approached the victim. He said, “Open your wallet”. The victim did not respond. The offender produced the knife. He held that near his own stomach at the victim’s shoulder height with the blade towards the ground. He was about a metre to 1½ metres away. The knife was a large kitchen knife with a black handle and silver blade, between 15 to 27 metres in length and 8 centimetres wide. The offender said, “Take out the cash from your wallet”. The victim removed his wallet from his jumper and from it took bank notes totalling $270, the entirety of the cash in his wallet. The victim said, “Just take it, I don’t want any trouble”. He felt threatened upon the production of the knife and handed over the money so he would not be hurt.…

Continue reading R v Law

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Law [2020] NSWDC 724
Case
[2020] NSWDC 724
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Law, the respondent, Law, was convicted of armed robbery and faced sentencing by the court. The respondent, while armed with a knife, committed a robbery. The victim sustained injuries, but the respondent's actions did not rise to the level of causing grievous bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the nature of the crime and the respondent's criminal history.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine a suitable penalty for the offence of armed robbery, weighing the severity of the crime against the respondent's prior record. The court also had to establish a non-parole period to ensure that the respondent would serve a significant period before being eligible for parole. The court's decision involved balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court found the offence to be serious due to the use of an offensive weapon, but it did not result in grievous bodily harm. Considering the respondent's criminal history, which included previous offences, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a total of three years and six months. The non-parole period was set at two years, which the respondent must serve before being eligible for parole. This decision reflects the court's intention to punish the respondent while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent, Law, would serve a sentence of imprisonment for three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years. This decision aims to address the severity of the crime while considering the respondent's potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

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.