District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lin [2021] NSWDC 70 Hearing dates: 4 February 2021 Date of orders: 4 February 2021 Decision date: 04 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Buscombe DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence imposed one of two years and four months to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order.
Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon
CRIME — Custody of prohibited weapon
CRIME — Property offences — Goods in custody
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97(1)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 7(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1996 (NSW) s 3A
Cases Cited: Bullock v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 131
BP v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 159
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecution (Crown)
Kyle Lin (Offender)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr J Chin (Crown)
Mr J Kalantar (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/7408 Publication restriction: Nil
SENTENCE
Introduction
-
The offender, Mr Lin, pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to those pleas before me to the following offences. The first being that on 4 January 2020, in Redfern, he attempted to rob Lorna Zhou of money whilst being armed with an offensive weapon, namely what appeared to be a car key. That is an offence under s 97 subs (1) of the Crimes Act and it carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. There is no applicable standard non-parole period.
-
The second offence is an offence that on the same date he possessed a prohibited weapon, namely a flick knife, with a nine centimetre blade without being authorised to do so by a permit. That offence is an offence under s 7 subs (1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act and has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non-parole period of five years. The offender acknowledges his guilt in relation to an offence of goods in custody, the amount being $7,971.05 and asks that I take that into account when imposing the sentence on possess prohibited weapon offence.
-
In the circumstances of that offence here, the offence on the Form 1 does not have a significant impact upon the sentence I will impose on the prohibited weapon offence.
The Facts
-
The facts are agreed and the following is taken from them.
-
At about 9.10am on Saturday 4 January 2020 the victim, Ms Lorna Zhou, left her boyfriend’s apartment on Cope Street, Waterloo. She walked north along the western footpath of Cope Street towards Redfern Railway Station. Just north of the laneway connecting Cope Street and Regent Street Ms Zhou saw two males walking towards her on the footpath. One was this offender and the other was the co-offender Brandon Foo. As the males approached her this offender grabbed her by the front of her black hoodie on the right side of the collar. She was understandably startled and this offender said “Give me your fucking money”. The co-offender held what Ms Zhou thought was a…
Continue reading R v Lin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lin [2021] NSWDC 70
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 70
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriate sentences for each offence and whether they should be served concurrently or consecutively. The court also had to consider the appellant’s background, including his age and prior criminal history, in determining the sentence. The prosecution argued for a cumulative sentence to reflect the severity of the crimes, while the defence sought a more lenient outcome, citing the appellant’s youth and lack of a significant criminal record.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but also considered the appellant's age and the potential for rehabilitation. It determined that while each offence warranted punishment, the overall sentence should reflect the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court decided to impose an aggregate sentence of two years and four months, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. This decision aimed to provide a structured rehabilitation program while also ensuring public safety.
The court’s final orders were that the appellant would serve a total of two years and four months through an Intensive Correction Order. This sentence was designed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aggregate sentence imposed one of two years and four months to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order.
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.