R v Scott - [2024] NSWDC 150

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Scott [2024] NSWDC 150
Hearing dates: 8 March 2024
Date of orders: 8 March 2024
Decision date: 08 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Deprived and impoverished background — Acquired brain injury — Multiple mental health disorders — Drug addiction — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149
R v Millwood [2012] NSWSC 2
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category: Sentence
Parties: Matthew John Scott (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
D Turner solicitor for Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT)
K MacKinnon solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/79307

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

When he was before the Local Court, Matthew Scott said he would plead guilty to a serious criminal offence – Robbery Armed with an Offensive Weapon: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1). The offence was committed on a south coast Kentucky Fried Chicken (‘KFC’) store. Only a relatively small amount of money was taken.
Scott has spent most of his adult life in custody. He was on parole at the time, having only recently been released. The offence was captured by the store’s CCTV. If Scott had thought about it, he must have realised that he would have been arrested and returned to gaol. He is back there again.
He must be punished for what he did and the impact of his crime on the individual victims present at the KFC and the business must be taken into account. In addition to the impact on the immediate victims, crimes like this have an impact on our community as a whole. People should feel safe when they go out at night to get take‑away food. They cannot feel safe if one of their fellow customers is in the queue with a knife and then commits a robbery. Ultimately, courts have an important role in ensuring community safety.
For those reasons, despite all the important matters to which I will refer about Scott’s background, he…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Scott 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWDC 150
Decision Date: 08 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Scott, was charged with armed robbery, having used an offensive weapon during the commission of the crime. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of [State]. The core of the dispute was the appropriate sentence for Scott, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court was tasked with determining the weight to be given to various aggravating factors, including Scott's breach of conditional liberty and his history of previous convictions. It also had to consider the role of sentencing guidelines, balancing these against subjective considerations such as Scott's deprived and impoverished background, acquired brain injury, multiple mental health disorders, drug addiction, and other special circumstances. Furthermore, the court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the offence against mitigating factors, including Scott's plea of guilty.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the severity of the offence, noting the use of an offensive weapon and the violent nature of the crime. However, it also recognised the substantial mitigating factors present in Scott's case. The court found that while the aggravating factors warranted a significant sentence, the mitigating factors, including Scott's plea of guilty and his personal circumstances, could not be ignored. After careful consideration of all the factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence of imprisonment for three years and one month, with a non-parole period of two years. This balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating aspects of Scott's background and circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years

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 Scott [2024] NSWDC 150
Hearing dates:	8 March 2024
Date of orders:	8 March 2024
Decision date:	08 March 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Armed robbery — Offensive weapon SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Deprived and impoverished background — Acquired brain injury — Multiple mental health disorders — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 R v Millwood [2012] NSWSC 2 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Matthew John Scott (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Solicitors: D Turner solicitor for Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) K MacKinnon solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/79307