R v Lawrence

[2024] NSWDC 667

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 667

Hearing dates:

19 December 2024

Date of orders:

19 December 2024

Decision date:

19 December 2024

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Driving offences — Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm

CRIME — Public justice offences — Escape police custody

TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT — Traffic law — Offences — Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period

SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions

SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines

SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty

SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment

SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Specific deterrence — Multiple offences — Totality — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Proportionality

SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug and alcohol addiction — Mental health — Antisocial — Childhood deprivation — Childhood trauma and sexual abuse

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Road Transport Act 2013 (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

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553

R vGeddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203

R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666

R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; (2002) 55 NSWLR 252

R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222

Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Steven Lewis James Lawrence (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Representation:

Solicitors:
A Socorro solicitor for Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
J Azad solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s):

2023/220982

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

1. On 11 July 2019 I sentenced Steven Lawrence for very serious offending. At the conclusion of my judgment I noted:

“He has been before the courts many times. He has been in prison many times. He has been given and breached supervised orders many times. Harsh punishments have not deterred him. To the contrary, it appears he has learnt many negative lessons from imprisonment. He may have learnt more negative ones than positive ones. Except for a very short period, he has never lived a normal community life. He had no grounding, until he took up with Ms Hamilton, in normal community life. He has few skills to equip him for life, other than crime, but he has shown some capacity to work in the community.”: R v Lawrence [2019] NSWDC 666 at [33].

2. After serving the non-parole period I imposed upon him he was admitted to parole on 7 July 2022. He resumed life with his family, including his partner, and grandmother who has cared for him all his life. Both are present in Court today. He continued his engagement with Probation and Parole.

3. He did, however, offend by a drive while disqualified and committing other traffic offences in May 2023. He continued his engagement with his parole officer. Her report from 10 May 2023 notes:

“Mr Lawrence has generally reported as required for supervision purposes and the focus of case management has been on addressing his relapse to heroin. Mr Lawrence accepted a referral to Illawarra Drug and Alcohol Service [‘IDAS’] and was then subsequently referred to the Bungora Clinic for opioid replacement therapy. To his credit and after missing two scheduled appointments as a consequence of poor time management, Mr Lawrence attended a doctor’s appointment on 26/4/2023 and was commenced on suboxone treatment on 01/05/23. Mr Lawrence reports that he has remained abstinent from heroin since he commenced treatment and advises he is currently motivated to start work.”

4. He was not breached.

5. On 27 June 2023 Lawrence was seen by police riding a motorcycle. He gave an explanation to a psychologist, Ms Durkin, as to why he drove the motorcycle that day. He clearly was not thinking of the consequences to himself or his family. He should not have been driving. He knew he was disqualified. His driving put him in breach of his parole. And he is now for sentence for a number of serious offences.

6. This morning, he adhered to pleas entered in the Local Court to the offence of dangerous driving, at a speed dangerous and occasioning grievous bodily harm: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(3)(b). That offence has a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment and there are licence disqualification provisions.

7. He was spoken to and cautioned by police. He ran away from police and his responsibilities.

8. He accepted his guilt in the Local Court to an offence of escape police custody, a common law offence, which when dealt with in the Local Court carries a maximum penalty of 2 years. That offence comes to the Court on a s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) certificate.

9. On the same certificate was a drive motor vehicle during a licence disqualification period, second offence. It carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment: Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 54(1)(a). And there are driving disqualifications.

10. He was ultimately arrested on 26 September 2023 . He is currently serving balance of parole which expires on 6 April 2025.

11. I have the benefit of comprehensive written submissions from Ms Azad, solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Ms Socorro from Legal Aid NSW. I have the benefit of Agreed Facts, my earlier judgment and parole documentation. A report from a clinical forensic psychologist, Ms Durkin, dated 9 December 2024 is before me as is a letter from a treating psychologist, Ms Lewthwaite, dated 20 October 2023. All of those matters help inform this judgment.

Aggreed Facts

12. I turn now to the facts for sentence.

13. At about 6pm on 27 June 2023 police were in a police vehicle in Primbee, Southern Wollongong. They saw a motorcycle, that appeared to be travelling above the 50 kilometre speed limit. They followed that vehicle. They noted that the motorcycle did not have a registration plate.

14. Lawrence was driving the motorcycle. It turned into a major road and accelerated to a speed over the 60 kilometre speed limit. Police checked that speed and 100 kph was recorded.

15. The police were about to activate their warning devices and sirens when they saw that the motorcycle had collided with a bicycle. A woman had been riding her bicycle slowly across the road. She did not anticipate the speed of the motorbike being driven by Lawrence, and thought she had time to cross the road. Police noted that seconds before the collision Lawrence tried to take evasive action. His body drifted to the left and the rear brake of the motorcycle locked, causing the rear to kick out and collide with the bicycle. As a result of the collision, the woman on the bicycle fell on the road. Police immediately stopped. The offender was also on the side of the road.

16. They introduced themselves to him and cautioned him. He gave them a false name and he gave them an explanation which I do not have any regard to.

17. An ambulance was called. The police told the offender to just sit down, he said he could not. As police were searching his backpack, Lawrence pointed, and when the police looked where he was pointing, he took off in the opposite direction. They commenced to follow him, but he was able to evade them and a police dog unit that was later called to the scene.

18. On 26 September 2023, police attended an address in Wollongong and arrested Lawrence, and he has been in custody ever since.

19. Police were able to track down the offender because an inbuilt feature of his Apple iPhone or Apple watch had a “crash detection” feature. The device sent an alarm to contact emergency services. The phone number that was used to activate the call to emergency services was registered to his previous partner.

20. The victim was treated at the scene by an ambulance. She was admitted to that hospital. She had a left open proximal humerus fracture. She underwent a humeral shaft wound washout, open reduction and internal fixation with screws inserted into the fracture. She was discharged from hospital on 28 June.

Objective seriousness

21. The sentence must be proportionate to what was done. I have to consider the seriousness of this offence. In doing so, I apply the guideline judgment of R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 42A. That guideline is “not a tramline”: Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244 at [59]. It does not confine my discretion nor is it the starting point; it is a reference point: R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553 at [40]. But in Whyte the Chief Justice noted that for offences such as the one before the Court, where the offender’s moral culpability is high, a custodial sentence of 2 years in the case of grievous bodily harm would generally be appropriate. If there are other aggravating factors, appropriate increments are required.

22. The guideline has been addressed in the written submissions. Its reference points include both objective and subjective matters. The most relevant objective ones here are nature of the driving and its of speed.

23. At one point the motorcycle was travelling over 40 kilometres above the posted speed limit. A reason we have speed limits is not simply to prevent people travelling at the speed the road is capable of maintaining, but out of recognition that other road users may could misapprehend the speed that the vehicle is approaching them, as here.

24. The offender had shown no regard for the other road users who he was putting at risk. While he was not technically subject to a police pursuit, it is fairly obvious to me that he was speeding to avoid the obvious consequences of him not being licensed and speeding.

25. Another important fact is that he simply should not have been driving that day.

26. And I must consider the the injuries, these were not minor injuries, they involved grievous bodily harm.

27. I have no Victim Impact Statement, but I have done enough work as a lawyer to understand the impact of the orthopaedic injuries the young woman suffered. They may have lasting consequences. It was a serious break requiring fixing by screws. The absence of a Victim Impact Statement does not mean that there was no harm occasioned: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 30E.

28. The offence requires a custodial sentence of some length. It is a serious example of its type.

29. The escape was a not uncommon offence for its type. Lawrence had obligations to the police. He failed in his obligations as a good citizen as well.

30. He should not have been driving, as he well knew. Any driving disqualified offence is serious. Irrespective of the motivation of the offender, people have to learn to respect the law, and wilful disobedience of court orders and disqualifications can, and will here, result in a custodial penalty.

Other matters

31. I have regard to the maximum penalties. I have regard to the guideline judgment. They help inform this sentencing exercise.

32. His criminal history does not assist him. The sentences are aggravated because it was committed in breach of the promises he made to himself, the State Parole Authority and his family not to reoffend while on parole.

33. His extensive record means that this offence is not an uncharacteristic aberration. I have to take into account his continuing disobedience to the law. It means that community protection remains of considerable concern no matter that there is a strong case in mitigation.

Subjective case

34. Ms Durkin’s report indicates Lawrence’s personal history, which I also summarised in my earlier judgment. As a child, he suffered considerable deprivation. Despite the best efforts of his grandmother, he was exposed to multiple traumas; growing up in poverty, subject to alcohol, drug abuse and crime. He suffered significantly from a lack of stability from his parents.

35. As Ms Durkin notes, at par 48:

“Regrettably, Mr Lawrence received no respite from trauma, noting that even in environments where safety should be provided by caregivers, he was exposed to sexual abuse.”

36. It appears his coping tactic involved drug use and hanging out with negative peers. He became enmeshed in an antisocial network. His antisocial views are inherent to his coping strategies, and they are entrenched. Disturbingly, she notes at par 35 that he “endorse[s] a desire to engage in high risk and thrilling behaviours”.

37. These historic factors and other matters combined with ongoing pressures, seem to encourage Mr Lawrence to consistently repeat his cycle of offending. He has not been, as I noted in the earlier judgment, deterred by time in custody.

38. He requires intensive drug and alcohol treatment, both in custody and in the community. He will benefit from connecting with and continuing with a psychologist for trauma enforced treatment. He will need to try and address his antisocial beliefs and attitudes by engaging in programs such as EQUIPS.

39. He had started on that process. He made, I am sure, promises to his partner and his son and his grandmother. He was engaged with a psychologist, Ms Lewthwaite, who recommends that he continue and engage in a comprehensive rehabilitation program on release. He needs considerable help on how to lead a normal life in the community; integrating into the community.

40. 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].

41. 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.

Totality

42. I have to fix appropriate sentences and consider matters so far as totality is concerned. There should be some independent punishment for the breach of parole, but I will backdate the sentence.

43. Despite his institutionalisation and his history, Lawrence had responded well to supervision, working from a very low base. The more he is helped on parole, the safer the community will be.

Submissions

44. In the comprehensive submissions, Ms Azad, for the Director, noted relevant matters which I have sought to give effect to. She correctly says that he is at high risk of reoffending and Ms Socorro, for the offender, cannot, given the material and the comprehensive reports before me, argue otherwise.

45. Ms Socorro submits however, that progress, small though it has been, while he was on parole last time, is positive and that the more rehabilitation programs that can be made available to him the safer the community will be.

Synthesis

46. I have to synthesise all these matters. There are no golden rules: R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 at [555]-[556]; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [65].

47. I have to give effect to the many competing and complex purposes of sentencing. A proper sentence marks the Court’s view of the seriousness of the crime. Although he has not been deterred in the past, Lawrence has to understand that his behaviour puts himself and others at risk. He hurt someone who was innocently trying to cross a road, and he has to go to gaol because of that. The sentence should, even though mitigated, let others know what will occur if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 at [205]; Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222.

48. I have to take into account the plea of guilty which was entered at an early opportunity. It requires I reduce by 25% the otherwise appropriate sentences, and I will take care that the process of accumulation does not erode that benefit.

Orders

49. In relation to each matter, Lawrence is convicted. I indicate the following sentences:

• In relation to the driving offence, there will be a sentence of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. A licence disqualification period of 2 years.

• In relation to the escape, there will be a sentence of 9 months imprisonment.

• In relation to the driving while disqualified, there will be a sentence of 4 months imprisonment. A licence disqualification period of 12 months.

50. The aggregate sentence is 3 years. The non-parole period is 1 year and 8 months. It will date from 6 January 2024. The non-parole period will expire on 5 September 2025. The balance of the term of 1 year and 4 months will commence on that date.

51. The backup charge is withdrawn and dismissed.

52. A copy of Ms Durkin’s report and Ms Lewthwaite’s report will go with the warrant.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 April 2025