R v Lawrence - [2025] NSWDC 387

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lawrence [2025] NSWDC 387
Hearing dates: 15 August 2025
Date of orders: 15 August 2025
Decision date: 15 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company
CRIME — Complicity — Accessory before the fact
CRIME — Property offences — Take and drive a conveyance
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Specific deterrence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — Drug addiction — Mental health — Institutionalisation — Childhood deprivation and multiple traumas

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244
Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149
R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666
R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 667
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Steven Lewis James Lawerence (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Hennessy (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
J Azad solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2024/96321

JUDGMENT – EX tempore revised

Agreed Facts

On 18 April 2023 CCTV captured a white Audi drive into the car park of a local business. Two men wearing balaclavas left the vehicle and entered the business’ office. One punched the business owner in the face. He was told to hold his hands up and not look back. Another male held a bladed weapon to his face.
The owner had, earlier that day, collected cash and had made up pay envelopes for his staff. Some staff had collected their pay, but it would appear the bulk of the pay envelopes were still on the desk, and they were taken. So too was $400 from the owner's wallet. The victim’s brief case was stolen. It contained approximately $4,000.
It is estimated, after having regard to the charge certificate, that $26,000 in currency, a mobile phone, a briefcase and other personal items were taken.
As a result of being punched, the owner suffered a small graze to his nose.
Later that evening, the Audi was located by police. It appears from what was recovered that an attempt had been made to clean the car. But that attempt was not wholly successful as a DNA profile, whose major contributor matched the…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence [2025] NSWDC 387
Case: [2025] NSWDC 387
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lawrence, the defendant was charged with multiple offences, including robbery in company, being an accessory before the fact, and taking and driving a conveyance. The case was heard and determined in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The defendant was convicted and subsequently sentenced, with the appeal against the sentence being the subject of this summary.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. Aggravating factors included the defendant's breach of conditional liberty, as well as a record of previous convictions. Mitigating factors included the defendant's plea of guilty, as well as subjective considerations such as the defendant's Aboriginal background, drug addiction, mental health issues, institutionalisation, and a history of childhood deprivation and multiple traumas. The court was required to balance these factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing relevant to the case, including the principles of deterrence, moral culpability, and the objective seriousness of the offence. The court also considered the subjective factors relevant to the defendant's personal circumstances. In weighing these factors, the court determined that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months. The court noted that the sentence should reflect both the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the defendant's level of moral culpability and the objective seriousness of the offence. However, the court also recognised the need to take into account the defendant's personal circumstances, including their Aboriginal background, drug addiction, mental health issues, institutionalisation, and history of childhood deprivation and multiple traumas.

The court's final orders were that the defendant be sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the case, as well as the principles of sentencing applicable to the offence. The court's decision provides guidance for practitioners in similar cases, highlighting the importance of considering both objective and subjective factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 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 Lawrence [2025] NSWDC 387
Hearing dates:	15 August 2025
Date of orders:	15 August 2025
Decision date:	15 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company CRIME — Complicity — Accessory before the fact CRIME — Property offences — Take and drive a conveyance SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — General deterrence — Specific deterrence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offender — Drug addiction — Mental health — Institutionalisation — Childhood deprivation and multiple traumas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666 R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 667 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Steven Lewis James Lawerence (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: T Hennessy (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender) J Azad solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2024/96321