District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v LEROY [2023] NSWDC 457 Hearing dates: 20 October 2023 Date of orders: 16 November 2023 Decision date: 16 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Lerve DCJ Decision: Sentenced – see paragaphs [69] - [74]
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCING – robbery whilst armed with gel blaster – service station – committed whilst on parole for earlier offence - co-offender accessory after the fact identified offender to police – plea of guilty - significant mental health and substance abuse issues
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Cases Cited: Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37
Di Simoni v The Queen
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Category: Sentence Parties: Rex
Zack LEROYRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr P Kerr for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr J Leaver for the Offender
Ms G McKenzie, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms T Mudditt, Legal Aid Commission of NSW
File Number(s): 2022/00270306, 2023/00113988 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
The offender was committed for sentence from the Local Court at Wagga Wagga on 23 June 2023 in respect of a charge that he:
On 31 August 2022 at Junee in the State of New South Wales, did rob Mark Jennings and Vanessa George of certain property, namely $647.15 and a cash register the property of Vantage Fuels Pty Ltd whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a gel blaster.
-
The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 20 October 2023 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
-
The offence for which the offender appears for sentence is contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Although there is no standard non-parole period specified in respect of the offence the Court will need to consider the Guideline Judgment in R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.
-
The offender asks that when passing sentence, the court takes into account a charge of Dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act which attaches to a Form 1 document. In passing sentence I will need to apply the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002, otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matters reported (2002) 56 NSWLR 156. That matter will have some impact on the ultimate sentence to be imposed but that impact will essentially be minimal.
Facts
-
The facts are before the court by way of a statement of agreed facts contained at…
Continue reading R v Leroy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Leroy [2023] NSWDC 457
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 457
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, the relevance of Leroy’s prior convictions and parole status, the factors indicating a high risk of reoffending, and the need to consider Leroy’s mental health and substance abuse issues in the sentencing process. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the need to rehabilitate Leroy and protect the community.
In determining the sentence, the court first considered the severity of the offence. The use of a gel blaster, albeit not a firearm, contributed to the seriousness of the crime as it created a perception of a lethal weapon. The court also took into account Leroy’s criminal history, including his earlier offence for which he was on parole at the time of the current offence, and the fact that his co-offender identified him to the police. The court found that Leroy’s mental health and substance abuse issues significantly contributed to his offending behaviour but did not mitigate the seriousness of the crime. The court ultimately decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending. Leroy was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details provided in paragraphs [69] to [74] of the judgment.
The court made several orders, including the imposition of a custodial sentence, a non-parole period, and directions for Leroy’s mental health and substance abuse treatment while in custody. The specific details of the sentence and associated orders can be found in paragraphs [69] to [74] of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced – see paragaphs [69] - [74]
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.