R v Lundberg
Case
•
[2013] SASCFC 43
•20 May 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Lundberg [2013] SASCFC 43
[2013] SASCFC 43
20 May 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, R v Lundberg, by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant had been found guilty of aggravated robbery and false imprisonment, having stolen $120,775 from a BankSA branch and restrained an employee. The sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of nine years and 10 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and 10 months, backdated to 30 March 2012. The appellant argued that this sentence was manifestly excessive.
The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the head sentence and non-parole period imposed were manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the offender. The appellant contended that the robbery was less serious than aggravated robberies typically involving offensive weapons against bank employees.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, applying the principles established in *R v Place*, considered the prevalence of armed robberies on vulnerable persons, often committed by those with drug or alcohol addictions. While acknowledging the importance of general deterrence and public protection, the Court distinguished the present case from the "standard penalty" range of six to eight years for such offences. The Court found that the appellant's robbery was well-planned, premeditated, and involved the exploitation of inside knowledge, distinguishing it from crimes of desperation. Although the robbery involved violence and a frightening period of false imprisonment, and a significant sum remained unrecovered with no remorse shown, the Court determined that the original head sentence of nearly 10 years was manifestly excessive for this type of offence.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The original sentence was set aside, and a new sentence of seven years and 10 months imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months. The commencement date for both the term of imprisonment and the non-parole period was fixed at 13 March 2012.
The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the head sentence and non-parole period imposed were manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence and the offender. The appellant contended that the robbery was less serious than aggravated robberies typically involving offensive weapons against bank employees.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, applying the principles established in *R v Place*, considered the prevalence of armed robberies on vulnerable persons, often committed by those with drug or alcohol addictions. While acknowledging the importance of general deterrence and public protection, the Court distinguished the present case from the "standard penalty" range of six to eight years for such offences. The Court found that the appellant's robbery was well-planned, premeditated, and involved the exploitation of inside knowledge, distinguishing it from crimes of desperation. Although the robbery involved violence and a frightening period of false imprisonment, and a significant sum remained unrecovered with no remorse shown, the Court determined that the original head sentence of nearly 10 years was manifestly excessive for this type of offence.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The original sentence was set aside, and a new sentence of seven years and 10 months imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months. The commencement date for both the term of imprisonment and the non-parole period was fixed at 13 March 2012.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Charge
-
Sentencing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Lundberg [2013] SASCFC 43
Most Recent Citation
Giordimania v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 28
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Brant
[2018] SASCFC 72
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57