R v Leota, Damien Jerome

Case [2016] NSWDC 384


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LEOTA, Damien Jerome [2016] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates:19 January 2016
Date of orders: 19 January 2016
Decision date: 19 January 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – armed robbery – with an offensive weapon – in company – CCTV footage – DNA evidence – taxi driver – store attendant – SENTENCE – vulnerability of victims – substantial criminal history – alcohol and illicit substance abuse – mental health history – mental condition relevant to specific deterrence – offence committed while on parole – parity
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Jimmy [2010] NSWCCA 60
R v Lattouf [1999] NSWSC 1382
R v Postiglione [1997] HCA 26
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 381
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Damien Jerome Leota (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr. Mcauliffe (Crown)
Mr. Nicol (Defendant)
File Number(s):2014/003372972014/00361789
Publication restriction:Nil

SENTENCE

  1. HIS HONOUR: Damien Jerome Leota appears today for sentence in relation to three offences, each contrary to s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900. The offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period in respect of each offence.

  2. Two of the offences were committed in December 2013. One offence was an offence of being armed with an offensive weapon when committing the offence of robbery, an offence committed on 10 December 2013 at Belmore when the offender robbed a shopkeeper of $1,000 in cash and ten packets of cigarettes, each valued at $39 each, whilst armed with an offensive weapon, to wit a black handled knife. The next day, 11 December 2013, in company with another man called Jeffrey(?) Rio, who has already been dealt with by Judge McClintock, the offender robbed a taxi driver, Mr Nasiri, at Wiley Park of his cash, his driver’s licence and Medicare card and a pair of spectacles as well as a car key. The third offence is an offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon committed 11 months later at Lakemba. Again the offender was alone, again he was armed with an offensive weapon, to wit a knife, and the offender on that occasion robbed a shopkeeper again and robbed that person of $200 in cash, the crime being committed at a convenience store.

  3. The facts in relation to the matters with which I am concerned are set out in the agreed statement of facts and the essence of those facts I have already summarised by reference to the…

Continue reading R v Leota, Damien Jerome

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leota, Damien Jerome [2016] NSWDC 384
Case
[2016] NSWDC 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Leota, Damien Jerome involved a conviction for armed robbery with an offensive weapon, committed in the company of another individual. The incident, which targeted a taxi driver and a store attendant, was captured on CCTV footage and supported by DNA evidence. The defendant's criminal history was extensive, marked by alcohol and substance abuse, along with a relevant mental health history. The defendant was on parole at the time of the offence, which presented specific deterrence as a significant consideration in the sentencing process.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were the appropriate weight to give to the defendant's substantial criminal history, his alcohol and substance abuse, and his mental health conditions. The court also had to consider the vulnerability of the victims and the principles of parity in sentencing. The defendant's legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing his mental health issues and potential for rehabilitation. However, the prosecution argued for a full-time custodial sentence, emphasising the seriousness of the offence and the need for specific deterrence.

The court, in its judgment, found that the defendant's criminal history, coupled with his alcohol and substance abuse, significantly undermined the prospects for rehabilitation outside of custody. The judge noted the gravity of the armed robbery, the use of an offensive weapon, and the impact on the victims. While the defendant's mental health was acknowledged, the court determined that the specific deterrence required outweighed the other factors. Consequently, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, ensuring that it aligned with sentences for similar offences. The decision was made with careful consideration of the principles of parity and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [81]

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.