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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. As a result of being punched, the owner suffered a small graze to his nose.

5. 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 profile of Steven Lewis Lawrence, was found.

6. Police were able to monitor calls between the offender and a woman. Those conversations indicated knowledge of the car. A warrant was sought for his arrest, but Lawrence was arrested on other matters on 26 September 2023.

7. He was spoken to while in custody on 8 November 2023. Under caution, he told police, “I’m not going down for this”. He said he got the car off [redacted]. He said another person told him about the place, and that he works there. He said that, “I don’t do armed robberies. I told [named person 3] what [named person 2] told me, and [named person 1] and [another] did the job”. Whether the names provided were accurate or reliable, I do not know.

8. The car involved had been stolen on 10 April 2023. There is no evidence who stole it, but CCTV from other local businesses was obtained, and Lawrence is seen driving that vehicle from 14 to 18 April 2023.

Maximum penalties

9. When he was before the Local Court, Lawrence said that he would plead guilty to two serious offences:

• Driving a conveyance taken without the consent of the owner. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 154A(1)(b); and

• Robbery in company: Crimes Act, s 97(1). It is charged as being accessory before the fact: Crimes Act, s 346. An accessory before the fact, is liable to the same maximum penalty of 20 years as those who carry out the robbery.

10. There is no evidence that Lawrence was, in fact, one of the robbers. There is no evidence as to what, if any, reward he got for his role. In terms of his role, the facts reveal; that he was using the car that was used in the robbery before the robbery, that he had information which he passed on to others that cash would be at the premises, and that it appears he also took some steps, unsuccessful though they were, to clean the vehicle; without his knowledge and the information he passed on, without the vehicle, there may not have been this offence.

Objective seriousness

11. Any armed robbery is serious. There is a guideline judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which I have regard: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149. But as the Chief Justice said in Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244, it is a guideline, not a tramline. I have to have regard to the guideline judgment by virtue of s 42(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). I note that that guideline also considered some subjective features. The maximum penalty in relation to both matters are also important guides to the assessment of the matter.

12. Here, a local business was robbed of a large sum of money. I could not make a finding of substantial harm suggested in the Crown’s submissions, as an additional aggravating feature. I am not inclined to make such findings unless they can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I prefer to focus on a practical approach, and that is that a small business lost $26,000, the equivalent, effectively, of two weeks’ pay for their workforce, which would have had to be made up.

13. The absence of a Victim Impact Statement does not mean that there was no harm. Obviously, the loss of such a sum to any business would be significant, and it would cause business owners to question why they do what they do; which is provide services and jobs in our local community.

14. As is obvious this was planned criminal activity. The victim was confronted at his workplace by armed men and assaulted.

15. By his plea, Lawrence accepts that he knew an armed robbery would take place. His role was pivotal. Just because he did not attend, does not mean that he is not liable for this serious offence, but liability is different than culpability, and his role means he was less culpable than those who actually carried out the robbery. It is still so serious an offence that a sentence of imprisonment of some length is required, so much was accepted by Lawrence.

16. He also made free use of a stolen car. Often, the most valuable thing a person owns is their car, if they are not lucky enough to have a house and a mortgage. We all need, in the modern world, transport. To have someone using your property which was unlawfully taken causes considerable inconvenience and loss, and I do not underestimate the impact such offences have on individuals and the community. Again, there must be a custodial sentence for that matter. But given the vehicle was also used in the robbery, I have to be particularly careful not to double count factors that go to both offences.

Case for the offender

17. Lawrence was born in 1984. This is the third time I have sentenced him. My previous sentencing judgments are before the Court: R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666; R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 667.

18. He is man of some intelligence, I believe. There are members of the community, particularly his partner and family members, who see the good in him. He has prosocial support.

19. When he was released to parole on 7 July, from my 2019 sentence, he appears to have tried hard to stay out of trouble and be a father to his son. He tried to be a decent partner. Sadly, his time in the community before he started reoffending was the longest period he had spent in the community since 2006. As the Crown submissions note; in the 19 years since 2006, he has only spent 21 months in the community.

20. In my previous judgments, I have set out his history of deprivation, exposure to various traumas and mental health issues. The report of Ms Durkin, a respected psychologist, was before me in the 2024. It notes his family history. It notes the effective abandonment of the family by his father. It notes his father was a Wiradjuri man, his mother, Kamilaroi. His relationship with his mother has been fraught; he did not cope well with her death in 2014. He has had considerable support from his maternal grandmother, but the homes he was raised in were violent and he was exposed to drug and alcohol use.

21. He has been able to work in the community. He has been able to work in custody but in the community he gravitates to the people he committed crimes with as a child, teenager and adult. He has been formed by his lengthy period in custody. He has engaged, since very young, in reckless and high-risk behaviour.

22. Sadly, he now feels more comfortable, or as he says, at “peace” while in custody. Various aspects of his personality formed when he was very young, pull him in different directions. He has never had much of an opportunity to live a prosocial life in the community, and he finds it difficult to cope with, what others would regard as the ‘normal’ responsibilities, of being a father, a partner and a worker in our community, and he lapses into crime.

23. He is particularly vulnerable to judgement and criticism, but he continues to put himself in a position where others, myself included, do judge and criticise his behaviour.

24. The material before me makes reference to particular traumas suffered while he was in juvenile detention. He is yet to engage or expand upon what occurred there. He may never be able to do so.

25. Ms Durkin says at par 48 that, "Regrettably, Mr Lawrence received no respite from traumas”, even in places where he was meant to be safe. It is recommended that he engage in intensive drug and alcohol treatment programs. He would benefit from EQUIPS programs. He would benefit from a mental health care plan.

Criminal history

26. A copy of Ms Durkin’s report is already with the Court because after the commission of this offence, he committed a further offence on 27 June 2023, and I dealt with and sentenced him for that matter in December last year. I will read paragraphs 40 and 41:

“There are multiple matters here that mean he should not be regarded in the same way as a person who did not have his multiple disadvantages. There are multiple paths toward a reduction of sentence because his moral culpability should not be judged in the same way as those without his disadvantages. They include; childhood deprivation, childhood trauma and mental health issues: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571; Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].

His background has significantly compromised, as is his capacity to mature and learn from experience. But he is now 40 years old. His criminality is entrenched. While those matters will be given full weight, the sentence must still be proportionate to what was done. Matters relating to community protection are important.”

27. They apply equally today, as they did then: R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 667.

28. This matter was not clear of the Local Court when I sentenced Lawrence in December 2024. It would have been preferable had I had both matters before me, although they are quite different and distinct. The Director and the defence are to be commended for doing their best to get this matter before me so the same judge could engage in all sentencing exercises.

29. The December 2024 sentence was partly accumulated on a small portion of the balance of parole of the earlier sentence. That balance of parole expired on 6 April 2025. The balance of parole of my 2024 sentence expires on 5 January 2027, and he becomes eligible for release to parole on 5 September this year.

30. It is clear from all the evidence that Lawrence has been institutionalised. It is also clear that as he gets older, he faces the same choice he is faced each time he comes out from prison – to attempt to do his best to work and provide for his family, or to go back to friends who engage in anti-social activities, serious crime and drug-taking. If he continues down that path, he will spend the rest of his life in gaol, just as he has spent the first half of his life in gaol. Obviously, matters referred to in the High Court in Veen No 2 apply here: Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at [477].

31. Weight has to be given to personal deterrence. That is, by Lawrence understanding, as I am sure he does, the consequences of his actions will put him back in a small cell away from people who love him. At the same time, as I have found before, and I find again, his moral culpability is not to be assessed in the same way that a person who did not have the multiple disadvantages and traumas he suffered. There are complex mental health issues that have to be considered as well.

32. The longer he is supported and supervised in the community, the better, justifying a finding of special circumstances. The accumulation of this sentence on the period he is presently serving in custody, which started on 26 September 2023, has to be taken into account.

33. He will have the full benefit for his early pleas of guilty. I have taken care not to erode that benefit by the process of accumulation.

Synthesis

34. Ultimately, I have to synthesise all of those matters and come to punishment that must be expressed in terms of years and months in custody. The sentence should properly reflect the seriousness of what was done and Lawrence's role, but it must also be moderated because of the matters that I have noted. The matters that formed Lawrence do not diminish over time.

35. I propose to start this sentence one year after he was charged for it, on 8 November 2024.

Orders

36. In relation to the drive a stolen vehicle, I indicate a sentence of 9 months imprisonment.

37. In relation to the armed robbery, I indicate a sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.

38. The non-parole period will commence on 8 November 2024. It will be for a period of 1 year and 11 months, meaning he will be eligible for consideration for release to parole on 7 October 2026. There will be a parole period of 1 year and 7 months, making his total sentence expire on 7 May 2028.

**********

Decision last updated: 26 September 2025