R v Olson

[2014] NSWDC 163

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Olson [2014] NSWDC 163
Hearing dates:	17 April 2014
Decision date:	17 April 2014
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years and a head sentence of 6 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Robbery - Drug addiction
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 AcrimR
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Raymond Patrick Olson
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/234424

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: I am going to begin these remarks by considering the position of Mr Olson the offender, not because I have overlooked the objective gravity of his offence, but because his offending needs to be put in context.

1. Mr Olson was released from custody having served a sentence for robbery in company on 26 June 2010. He tried to get a job. He tried to get many jobs but was unsuccessful. He has no computer skills and indeed has no real skills which would make him an attractive proposition to an employer, having spent a considerable part of his life in custody. When he applies for jobs he tells people of his criminal history. When he applies for jobs employers, he says, respond by considering that they can get the work done by someone considerably younger at a considerably cheaper price. So Mr Olson's ability to get a job, which is an essential part of his rehabilitation, has been hindered by his lengthy criminal history. Of course he only has himself to blame for that and he himself does not blame employers for turning him down over and over again.

1. Part of Mr Olson's problems and indeed perhaps the main reason that he continues to commit criminal offences concerns his long time problem with drugs and alcohol. On 30 July last year he was using drugs and drinking and committed an offence which he can no longer remember. He went to an adult store in Dee Why near where he lived. There was a shop attendant there. He had previously looked around in the shop and when he returned 20 minutes later he walked up to the side of the sales counter and the attendant noticed he was holding a steel claw hammer. The offender said, "This is a robbery where is the money". The attendant briefly grabbed on to Mr Olson's wrist before backing away. The offender came around to the attendant's side of the counter and began searching for money. The attendant told the offender that he was a trainee, that he had not sold anything and did not know where the cash was kept. One can only imagine the apprehension felt by the attendant who genuinely did not know where extra cash was, but who found himself in the position where the offender just did not believe him and he kept saying, "You do know' and was searching through the drawers.

1. Eventually the offender turned his attention to the cash register and tried to open it but could not. He tried to force it open with the hammer but was unsuccessful. Eventually he picked up the cash register and pulled it out of the wall and ran out of the shop with it. A short time later police went to the offender's home. They executed a search warrant and they discovered the cash register, a claw hammer and clothing which had been worn by the offender on the day he committed the robbery. He was interviewed by police. At first he made no admissions but then once that first interview was completed he told police that he wanted to come clean. A second interview was held in which the offender admitted that he committed the offence in order to fund his drug addiction, being addicted to pills, benzodiazepine, Valium, Xanax and what he said was "stuff like that".

1. The offender explained to police why he had changed his mind and admitted the offence to police. He said, "I'm sick of the lifestyle, I'm just sick of my own cheating and bullshit and so I just decided to tell the truth". Consistent with that attitude the offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The sentence I impose upon him will thus be 25% less than it would otherwise have been.

1. I should also refer to something else that happened in between Mr Olsen's stints in custody. In August 2012 he took an overdose of Rivotril. He passed out and was found by his ex-wife some days later. He was taken to Royal North Shore Hospital where he was treated for a significant period of time. He spent two weeks in intensive care. On discharge from hospital he had a number of ongoing complaints including damage to his cognitive function. He remains less than a 100% fit and that together with his age, now 48 years old, will mean that he does his time in custody much harder than he use to do it as a younger man. As he said in a letter addressed to me, prison is not a place for men of his age.

1. Another factor to be taken into account in determining the effect of the sentence of imprisonment which I must impose upon Mr Olson concerns the fact that he has been and is likely to serve his sentence on protection. Mr Olsen explained the differences between serving a sentence on protection and serving a sentence in the mainstream prison population. I have taken those differences into account in determining the length of the sentence to impose upon him.

1. Also in the letter written to me Mr Olsen makes repeated assertions that he needs rehabilitation rather than further time in prison. A number of things need to be said about that. Firstly even on protection Mr Olsen has access to rehabilitation services that he can avail himself of whilst in custody. Secondly on his release from custody he can be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service, and thirdly rehabilitation will only work once he decides to stop abusing drugs. As Mr Kozanecki acknowledge this offence falls and the offender falls squarely within the R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR346; (1999) 106 A Crim R guideline with the exception of course that the offender is not a young man with little or no criminal history. I have taken the Henry guideline into account in formulating the appropriate sentence to impose upon Mr Olson.

1. Mr Kozanecki asked me to find special circumstances. The Crown did not speak in opposition to that finding. Clearly, as I began these remarks on sentence, it is difficult for someone like Mr Olson to re-enter the law abiding community in circumstances where it is difficult in the extreme for him to get gainful employment. He clearly, perhaps somewhat belatedly, acknowledges how much he has missed out through spending so much time in gaol. It will be not only in Mr Olsen's interests but also in the community's interests for substantial efforts to be made towards Mr Olson's rehabilitation.

1. Although perhaps general deterrence has slightly less of a role to play because of the cognitive deficits recently acquired by Mr Olson, it remains the case that personal deterrence has a very important part to play in hopefully persuading Mr Olson to avoid future misconduct of this kind.

1. I impose a sentence of imprisonment which consists of a non-parole period of three years to date from 1 August 2013 and a head sentence of six years. The non-parole period will expire on 31 July 2016 on which day the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

**********

Decision last updated: 13 October 2014