District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v McGuiness; R v Trevascus [2020] NSWDC 90 Hearing dates: 25 October 2019 and 4 March 2020 Decision date: 04 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Colefax SC DCJ Decision: For offender Mr McGuiness, term of imprisonment of 7 years 7 months with a non parole period of 5 years 8 months; for offender Mr Trevascus, an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non parole period of 5 years 3 months.
Catchwords: CRIME -SENTENCE- Robbery in company; attempted aggravated take and drive motor vehicle. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss97(1), 154C(2) and 344A(1) Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Frank McGuiness (Offender)
Ryan Trevascus (Offender)Representation: Mr Kotsis (Crown Prosecutor)
Ms Skinner (Solicitor for offender McGuiness)
Mr Park (Counsel for offender Trevascus)
File Number(s): 2018/228669; 2018/248963 Publication restriction: Nil
-
Frank McGuiness and Ryan Trevascus, you each appear for sentence today in relation to the principal offence of robbery in company.
-
This involves a contravention of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years' imprisonment. There is no standard non‑parole period, but there is a relevant guideline judgment from the Court of Criminal Appeal, namely, R v Henry.
-
Mr Trevascus you also appear for sentence in relation to a second principal offence of attempted aggravated take and drive motor vehicle with a person in it.
-
This involves the combined operation of ss 154C(2) and 344A(1) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years' imprisonment. Again, there is no standard non‑parole period.
-
Mr McGuiness, you do not appear for sentence in relation to such a second principal offence. However, in your case I have certified a matter on a Form 1, which is to be taken into account with the robbery in company offence. The matter on that Form 1 is attempted aggravated take and drive motor vehicle with person in it.
-
Mr Trevascus, you appear for sentence following a trial which commenced on 22 July 2019, when you were arraigned before a jury panel in relation to both of those counts. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found you guilty of both offences.
-
Mr McGuiness, you did not proceed to trial; but rather, you entered a late plea in relation to the robbery in company matter shortly before Mr Trevascus' trial date.
-
Mr McGuiness, you originally were listed for sentence on 27 September 2019 but I vacated that date, once Mr Trevascus had been found guilty by the jury, in order that both of you could be sentenced by the same judge at the same time.
-
Initially both of you were supposed to be sentenced on 25 October 2019. The hearing date, in fact, commenced on that day, but because of a power outage in Campbelltown, the sentence hearing date had to be adjourned to 10…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v McGuiness; R v Trevascus and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 90
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate length of imprisonment for each defendant, considering the gravity of their offences. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the need for rehabilitation and the proportionality of the sentence. The court also needed to consider the individual circumstances of each offender, including their criminal history, culpability, and any mitigating factors.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the circumstances of the crime, the roles played by each offender, and the impact on the victims. The court noted the seriousness of the offences, which involved a significant level of violence and planning. However, the court also considered the individual circumstances of each offender, including their backgrounds and any mitigating factors. After careful deliberation, the court determined that McGuiness should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 7 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8 months. Trevascus was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.
The court's final orders were that McGuiness would serve a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8 months, and Trevascus would serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the legal principles involved and the specific circumstances of each case.
Orders
Orders of the court
For offender Mr McGuiness, term of imprisonment of 7 years 7 months with a non parole period of 5 years 8 months; for offender Mr Trevascus, an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non parole period of 5 years 3 months.
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.