R v Robinson, Sam - [2007] NSWDC 372

CITATION: R v Robinson, Sam [2007] NSWDC 372
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 September 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentences of imprisonment imposed - see [58] - [59]

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Commonwealth and NSW offences - fradulent conduct - obtain benefit by deception - $120,000 value in goods - offending period spanning 14 years - past history of similar offending.

CASES CITED: R v Paragalli [2006] NSWCCA 87
R v Colleen Halls and anon. [2002] NSWCCA 55.

PARTIES: Regina
Sam Robinson

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0750

JUDGMENT

1. Sam Robinson told Probation and Parole that he is a gambler but that his gambling is not out of control. I can do little but accept him at his word for there is no evidence before me that links his repeated criminal offending to gambling or, frankly, to anything else.

2. Sam Robinson has pleaded guilty to eight Commonwealth offences and eight New South Wales offences. When being sentenced for count 13 on the indictment he asks that I take into account a further ten New South Wales matters. The Crown also asks that I sentence for two backup charges pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

3. There are three offending periods covered by the criminality that is before me.

4. In relation to count 1 and the two offences on the s 166 certificate the offender’s criminality spans 1991, 1999 and 2004.

5. In relation to the Commonwealth counts 2 to 8 they occur between March 2005 and October 2005.

6. In relation to counts 9 to 16 (which are the State matters) and the ten offences placed on a Form 1, they occur in a period 2001 and 2005.

7. Today the offender is to be held accountable for all this criminal conduct.

8. As the sentencing judge it falls to me to resolve a number of competing tensions as I strive to determine the appropriate sentences for these offences before this court committed by this offender damaging this community or, at least, companies in it and others. My initial task requires an assessment of the objective criminality of the offences before the Court. I will also need to have regard to matters personal to him, that is subjective matters. Regrettably, evidence on that is fairly sparse.

9. The starting point for such assessments requires a sentencing judge to make findings of fact from the evidence before the Court relating to the offence and to the offender. The offender’s rehabilitation prospects will have to be assessed, even if looking through a glass darkly.

10. Some of these charges are offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. Section 16A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act requires a sentencing Judge to take into account a number of specific matters. When a term of imprisonment greater than three years is to be imposed the length of the non-parole…

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 Robinson, Sam

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson, Sam [2007] NSWDC 372
Case: [2007] NSWDC 372
Decision Date: 14 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Robinson, Sam, the respondent stood accused of engaging in fraudulent conduct over a period spanning fourteen years, resulting in the acquisition of goods valued at $120,000. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent had a history of similar offending, which played a significant role in the court's consideration of his culpability and the appropriate sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the respondent's extensive and persistent fraudulent activities. The court needed to consider not only the gravity and nature of the offences but also the respondent's history of similar conduct, which indicated a pattern of dishonest behaviour. Additionally, the court had to balance the principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation in imposing a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences.

The court found that the respondent's offending was of a serious nature, involving a significant degree of deception and planning. The court acknowledged the substantial value of the goods obtained by fraud and the long duration over which the offences were committed. Given the respondent's history of similar offending, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and denunciation. The court imposed sentences of imprisonment, taking into account the totality of the respondent's offending and the need to protect the community from further harm.

The court's final orders included the imposition of specific terms of imprisonment for the respondent, reflecting the court's assessment of the seriousness of the offences and the respondent's criminal history. The exact details of the sentences were outlined in the court's reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentences of imprisonment imposed - see [58] - [59]

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.

CITATION:	R v Robinson, Sam [2007] NSWDC 372 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
JUDGMENT DATE:	14 September 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentences of imprisonment imposed - see [58] - [59]
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentencing - Commonwealth and NSW offences - fradulent conduct - obtain benefit by deception - $120,000 value in goods - offending period spanning 14 years - past history of similar offending.
CASES CITED:	R v Paragalli [2006] NSWCCA 87 R v Colleen Halls and anon. [2002] NSWCCA 55.
PARTIES:	Regina Sam Robinson
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0750