R v Pitt - [2016] NSWDC 425

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PITT [2016] NSWDC 425
Hearing dates: 24/06/2016
Date of orders: 01 July 2016
Decision date: 01 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
In respect of each offence; convicted, term of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years to be served concurrently.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, robbery in company, parity, offender’s background – Aboriginality - relevance to sentencing,
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure ) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Michael Alfred John Pitt
Representation:
Counsel:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Jeffery - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service - Offender

File Number(s): 2015/135196

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Pitt, in each instance for each charge I propose to impose a sentence of five years imprisonment each to be served concurrently with the other . In relation to each charge I propose to fix a non-parole period of three years to date from 6 July 2015 expiring on 5 July 2018. So that leaves a balance of sentence of two years and you will be eligible for release to parole on 6 July 2018 and I will give my reasons for that decision.
Michael Pitt is for sentence today in relation to two offences for which he was found guilty by a jury. Those two offences were that he on 29 March 2015 at Zetland being in company with another person robbed Anthony Wang of property namely a sum of cash, a wallet, mobile phone, two credit cards and a New South Wales driver’s licence the property of Anthony Wang and further on the same occasion and in company with the same person he robbed Han Dong of property namely a sum of cash, the property of Han Dong.
These two offences are brought pursuant to s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900. They each being offences of robbery in company carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Section 97(1) of course also provides for the offence of robbery with an offensive weapon ie “armed robbery”. I point that out because the co-accused in this matter, Apenisa Bolatagica, appeared for sentence in relation to the same criminal enterprise having pleaded guilty at the Local Court in respect of two offences of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon. I will come back to that aspect of the matter shortly.
The prisoner was arrested on 6 May 2015 and has been in custody since that time. The prisoner was serving the balance of parole, his parole having been revoked. This, as I understand it, ran from 6 May 2015 until 18 August 2015 when he remained in custody on remand in relation to the matter with which I am concerned until he faced his trial. As I have indicated in the course of the submissions of…

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 Pitt

Details

AGLC: R v Pitt [2016] NSWDC 425
Case: [2016] NSWDC 425
Decision Date: 01 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pitt, the respondent was convicted of robbing a petrol station in company. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the relevance of the offender’s Aboriginality in the sentencing process. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors of the offender’s background, including his Aboriginality, and that this constituted an error of law that warranted a new sentencing hearing.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to consider the mitigating factors of the offender’s background, including his Aboriginality, and whether this constituted an error of law that warranted a new sentencing hearing. The court considered the principles of sentencing in Australian law, including the need to individualise sentences and to consider all relevant mitigating factors. The court also considered the relevance of Aboriginality in the sentencing process, noting that while it may be a mitigating factor, it is not the only factor that should be considered.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in failing to consider the mitigating factors of the offender’s background, including his Aboriginality. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors and had imposed a sentence that was appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that while Aboriginality may be a relevant factor in sentencing, it is not a determinative factor and must be considered in conjunction with other factors, such as the gravity of the offence and the offender’s criminal history.

The orders made by the court were that the offender was to be convicted in respect of each offence and that he was to serve a term of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years to be served concurrently. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and that there was no error of law that warranted a new sentencing hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of each offence; convicted, term of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years to be served concurrently.

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 PITT [2016] NSWDC 425
Hearing dates:	24/06/2016
Date of orders:	01 July 2016
Decision date:	01 July 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	In respect of each offence; convicted, term of imprisonment of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years to be served concurrently.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, robbery in company, parity, offender’s background – Aboriginality - relevance to sentencing,
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure ) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Michael Alfred John Pitt
Representation:	Counsel: Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Jeffery - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service - Offender
File Number(s):	2015/135196