R v Lawrence
[2022] ACTSC 19
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Lawrence |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 19 |
Hearing Date(s): | 9 February 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 9 February 2022 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [21] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – breach of good behaviour order – serious medical condition |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 |
Cases Cited: | Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 5 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Tiffany Lawrence ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel M Howe ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 240 of 2021 |
Elkaim J
On 15 October 2021, Ms Lawrence pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is $400,000, imprisonment for 25 years or both.
The offence occurred a long time ago. It has not been previously dealt with because the offender either did not attend court appearances or was in custody in New South Wales. Clearly she is partly, but not entirely, to blame for the delay. The delay is a matter which I am able to take into account in today’s sentencing.
On 26 January 2015 the offender and two other persons forced their way into a house in Kambah. There was one person in the house. The offenders made demands of this person including wanting drugs. One of the offenders (not Ms Lawrence) punched the man. They also wanted the keys to his motorcycle. He handed over the keys and said that his wallet was upstairs. The offenders took credit cards from the wallet.
The victim may have been involved in drugs but that is not any sort of excuse for the actions of the offenders. Ms Lawrence was armed with the leg of a chair, it is unclear how that came to be in her possession. The resident ran out of the door and called 000. He was grabbed by one of the offenders and another hit him. Neighbours intervened to save the man. This offender had nothing to do with the assault which occurred outside the house.
The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending was at about medium. It referred to there being a trespass into a home together with a forced entry. There was a victim who was confronted by three persons one of whom had a weapon. There was both actual and threatened violence. I do not completely disagree with the Crown although my assessment is to place the offending a little below medium.
On 23 July 2015 one of the co-offenders, Mr Hodge, was sentenced by Murrell CJ to two years and eight months imprisonment for the aggravated robbery. This was after a discount of 40% arising from his plea of guilty and assistance to the authorities (R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214).
On 13 July 2016 Ms Murray, the other co-offender, was sentenced by Murrell CJ to imprisonment for two years and three months which was suspended after serving six months. She had received a discount of 25% (R v Murray [2016] ACTSC 173).
When the offence was committed the offender was serving a Good Behaviour Order which had been imposed [redacted]. She will need to be re-sentenced in respect of breaches of the orders.
The offender has been in custody for 187 days attributable to the current offence.
The offender was born in 1995. She has a significant criminal record both in the ACT and in New South Wales. The offender is of Aboriginal heritage. She was born in Wollongong but has spent some time in Tamworth. She was brought up by her mother, her grandmother and some uncles. Her grandmother is in court today indicating the good relationship she holds with her grandmother.
She has suffered some serious injuries requiring surgery. She has also suffered some brain damage as a result of an assault. The offender was in a relationship for about five years. It ended when she chose to distance herself from drug taking
Ms Lawrence completed Year 10 in a Canberra school and then continued with further education while in rehabilitation at the Moss Vale Triple Care Farm.
She has also gained licenses to operate heavy machinery and she has completed a land management and horticulture course. She has had some employment but has been limited by restrictions due to back pain. She has however volunteered in gardening work and has participated in the Indigenous Elders Healing Program.
Ms Lawrence has a long history of drug use. In early 2021 she was diagnosed with a polysubstance misuse disorder. She has suffered from depression which she thinks was caused by alcohol and family violence issues that she witnessed at her mother’s house in Tamworth. Ms Lawrence has obviously worked at her drug use. This is evidenced by the lack of any serious offending since 2018.
Ms Lawrence has significant medical conditions. She has spinal hardware (presumably inserted during spinal surgery) and has an MRSA infection. Linked to this, she has spinal osteomyelitis. She has had a lot of surgery and is dependent on daily medication for pain relief. This condition is the source of a great deal of pian and the sooner she is able to attend to the condition the better. If my sentence is lenient it is motivated to a degree by my wish to have her back in proper medical care as soon as possible.
Ms Lawrence says that she regrets the offending. She was on drugs at the time but accepts that the decision to participate in the offending was her own. The Pre-Sentence Report says that she has a medium to high risk of general reoffending, mostly deriving from her drug use, her mental health and her companions. The report does say that there are some positive elements in her daily life, in particular her relationship with her grandmother.
The report also says that Ms Lawrence is not suitable for an Intensive Correction Order because of her drug use and her living circumstances. Mr McLaughlin on her behalf, asked me to impose an Intensive Correction Order notwithstanding the view of the Pre-Sentence Report authors. I decline to do so. I think it can only be in exceptional circumstance that a Court should ignore the view of the experts in the field.
It is important to recognise the principles of parity when sentencing this offender. In Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 5 the following was said about parity at [29]:
The parity principle derives from the norm of “equal justice” which is an aspect of the rule of law: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 (Green) per French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ at [28]. Their Honours continued:
[Equal justice] requires, so far as the law permits, that like cases be treated alike. Equal justice according to law also requires, where the law permits, differential treatment of persons according to differences between them relevant to the scope, purpose and subject matter of the law. …
Consistency in the punishment of offences against the criminal law is “a reflection of the notion of equal justice” and “is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice”. It finds expression in the “parity principle” which requires that like offenders should be treated in a like manner. As with the norm of “equal justice”, which is its foundation, the parity principle allows for different sentences to be imposed upon like offenders to reflect different degrees of culpability and/or different circumstances.
(Footnotes omitted)
The Crown submitted that the level of offending of Ms Lawrence compared to the co-offenders is lesser, especially when compared to Mr Hodge. However taking into account other factors, the Crown submitted that the sentence imposed on Ms Murray was at least an appropriate starting point for this offender. As noted above, Ms Murray received a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment, but suspended after six months.
In relation to the breaches of the Good Behaviour Order the Crown submitted that the original sentence should be imposed, relying, amongst other factors, on the seriousness of the original crimes and the relative seriousness of the current offence which caused the breaches. I note however that when I outlined my intention this morning as to the appropriate sentence the Crown, displaying a fair and appropriate attitude, did not argue against my proposal.
I make the following orders:
(a) For the breach offence of assault (CH 929/2012) the offender is re-sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to commence 7 August 2021 and end on 6 November 2021
(b) For the breach offence of theft (CH 632/2012) the offender is re-sentenced to 1 month imprisonment to commence on 7 November 2021 and end on 6 December 2021
(c) For the current offence (CC 2719/2015) the offender is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, after applying an approximate 15% discount, to commence 7 December 2021 to end on 6 December 2023
(d) The above sentence is suspended after 6 months to end on 6 June 2022 on condition that the offender enter a good behaviour order for a period of 18 months on core conditions, those conditions to be applicable at the discretion of the Director General of Corrective Services
| I certify that the preceding twenty-one [21] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim Associate: Date: 9 February 2022 |
**************
Amendments
10 February 2022 Insert redaction at paragraph [8]
0
3
0