R v Nono - [2011] NSWDC 141

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nono [2011] NSWDC 141
Hearing dates: 29 July 2011
Decision date: 29 July 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
The offender is convicted of the offence. The offender is sentenced to five years imprisonment. A non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on 4 February 2010 is set. The nonparole period of two years and three months will expire on 3 May 2012 when the offender is released to parole on supervision, such supervision to continue until 3 February 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - offender convicted after jury trial - sentence - robbery while armed with offensive weapon
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Texts Cited: -
Category: Sentence
Parties: Mandella Nono
Representation: Mr Robinson (Crown)
Mr Segal
-

File Number(s): 2009/221176
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The offender pleaded not guilty to one count pursuant to s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in that on 4 October 2009 at Quakers Hill, New South Wales, being armed with an offensive weapon, a knife, he robbed Hajid Singh Chemma of a sum of cash, the property of Mr Singh and his employer Domino's Pizza for which the maximum penalty is twenty years and to which there is no standard non-parole period.

The offender was arraigned on 10 June 2010. On 18 March 2011 after a nine-day trial a jury convicted the offender.

The relevant facts may briefly be stated. Some time after 11.00pm on 3 October the offender and a minor were attending a party at premises in Lovegrove Drive, Quakers Hill. A telephone call was made for delivery of nine pizzas at a cost $103.55 to 110 Lovegrove Drive which was the house across the road from the party. At about midnight the pizza delivery driver arrived in Lovegrove Drive. Two men, one black and one white, approached. After the pizzas were handed over, the offender told the pizza delivery driver, "Give me your money" and held up a large knife he had brought with him. The driver handed over the blue pencil case containing about $460 and the men took the pizzas and a bottle of Coca Cola. The offender told the driver to leave, threatening that he knew where the driver worked and warning that what would happen if he contacted police.

Police were notified immediately about the robbery. A police car sent to the vicinity sent a radio message at 12.35am that two men fitting the description had been seen in the canal behind Lovegrove Drive. Shortly after that, the offender and his companion were stopped and searched. The victim's blue pencil case was found when the offender was searched. The offender was arrested and conveyed to the police station, as was his companion. Police also attended the Lovegrove Drive premises where the offender and his companion had been…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Nono

Details

AGLC: R v Nono [2011] NSWDC 141
Case: [2011] NSWDC 141
Decision Date: 29 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nono involved a defendant, Nono, who was convicted of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon following a jury trial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Nono's criminal conduct. The dispute centred on the severity and nature of the crime, as well as the appropriate term of imprisonment and parole conditions.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentence for the crime of robbery while armed and the determination of a non-parole period. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation of the offender. The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Crimes Act, including the principle of proportionality and the need to protect the community.

The court, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate. The court sentenced Nono to five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The non-parole period was set to commence on 4 February 2010 and expire on 3 May 2012, at which point Nono would be released to parole on supervision until 3 February 2015. The court emphasised the seriousness of the crime, the need for punishment, and the opportunity for rehabilitation during the parole period.

The final orders of the court were that Nono is convicted of the offence, sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The non-parole period will expire on 3 May 2012, with Nono to be released to parole on supervision until 3 February 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted of the offence. The offender is sentenced to five years imprisonment. A non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on 4 February 2010 is set. The nonparole period of two years and three months will expire on 3 May 2012 when the offender is released to parole on supervision, such supervision to continue until 3 February 2015.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Nono [2011] NSWDC 141
Hearing dates:	29 July 2011
Decision date:	29 July 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	The offender is convicted of the offence. The offender is sentenced to five years imprisonment. A non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on 4 February 2010 is set. The nonparole period of two years and three months will expire on 3 May 2012 when the offender is released to parole on supervision, such supervision to continue until 3 February 2015.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - offender convicted after jury trial - sentence - robbery while armed with offensive weapon
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Mandella Nono
Representation:	Mr Robinson (Crown) Mr Segal -
File Number(s):	2009/221176
Publication restriction:	None