R v London

[2020] NSWDC 404

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v London [2020] NSWDC 404

Hearing dates:

24-27 February 2020, 2 March 2020

Date of orders:

11 May 2020

Decision date:

11 May 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Dangerous weapon

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 97

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 3A

Cases Cited:

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mr Corey London (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Johnson (Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms R Trinnie (Crown)
Mr R Gregory (Offender)

File Number(s):

2018/285895

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. The offender Mr London stands to be sentenced after a trial conducted before me sitting as a judge alone for two offences of armed robbery. The particular offences are as follows. Count 1, being that he on 23 May 2018 at Kemps Creek robbed Rangana Maddumahewa of Australian currency the property of the owner of the BP Service Station whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a firearm or imitation firearm.

2. Count 2 on 24 May 2018 at Kemps Creek he attempted to rob Meetkumar Patel of Australian currency being the property of the United Service Station whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a firearm or imitation firearm. The offender was acquitted of the third count on the indictment. Both offences are offences under s 97(2) of the Crimes Act and have a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and there is no applicable standard non-parole period.

The Facts

3. Turning to the facts, these are sentence proceedings after trial and I am required to find the facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced and to the extent that I find a fact adverse to him then I must be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. There was no real contest at the trial as to the factual circumstances of the two offences, the only issue in the trial was whether I could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was this offender that perpetrated the two offences

4. In terms of the first offence; at around 4.26am on 23 May 2018 the offender entered the service station located at 1443 Elizabeth Drive, Kemps Creek and robbed the attendant there of the currency contained in the till drawer in the service station and the currency was approximately $670. The offender at the time of the armed robbery wore a black hoodie, a black face covering and black pants, he also wore gloves and used what appeared to be a silver handgun to threaten the attendant. In terms of the handgun that was used to threaten the service station attendant, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was an imitation firearm but could not be satisfied that it was an actual firearm.…