R v Skopin

[2019] NSWDC 758

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Skopin [2019] NSWDC 758
Hearing dates:	30 September 2019
Date of orders:	30 September 2019
Decision date:	30 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years and six months: at [13].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Rehabilitation SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Form 1 offences — Moral culpability — Factual basis for sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Drug addiction — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No. 1: [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 396
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown)   Stephen Skopin (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Watts (Solicitor for the Crown)   Mr Hughes (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/279988; 2018/279961

Judgment

1. Stephen Skopin, aged 33, appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to one count under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act1900 of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. A further offence of under s 97(1) is to be taken into account on a Form 1 in a way suggested by the Chief Justice in the guideline judgment on these matters: Attorney General’s Application No. 1 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.

2. The principal offence was committed on 6 July 2018, and as Mr Hughes accurately summarises it in his helpful written submissions, the offence was committed on a pizza delivery driver following the making of a false order to Domino’s Pizza by an unknown female. When the driver arrived at the delivery address and was speaking to the unknown female co-offender, the offender appeared, holding out a knife with a six-inch blade and demanding the driver give him all the cash. The female held the victim’s wrist and the offender held the blade of the knife against the victim’s left wrist on the outside of his jacket. The victim gave the offender his float money and the offender searched the delivery car, taking his phone and wallet and the offender and the female then ran away from the scene.

3. The Form 1 offence was a similar modus operandi. It involved another false order to a different pizza store. An unknown female co-accused was present when the delivery driver arrived but she left shortly thereafter. The offender arrived, put his left hand on the victim’s right side and demanded that the victim give him his money bag, saying “Mate, I’m not joking. I’ve got a big knife” and about $100 - $150 was taken, as well as the food that was ordered. The facts show that, the offender was holding a 10 centimetre knife with a five to six centimetre blade.

4. The offender was arrested on 12 September 2018 and declined to participate in an interview. Time spent in custody since his arrest solely referable to this offence is 294 days which commencing on 10 December 2018. He has been in custody for these offences, and other matters for a total of 384 days which period would commence on 11 September 2018. It is agreed between counsel that the commencement point of a term of imprisonment, which is conceded by Mr Hughes, should be within that range. In the exercise of my discretion I would commence the term of imprisonment one month after 11 September 2018, that is 11 October 2018.

5. I must take into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and allow a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the early plea of guilty.

6. The offender has a reasonably lengthy criminal record commencing with a sentence of eight months imprisonment for stalking and carrying offensive weapons in 2005, and a fixed sentence of three months in 2018 for not disclosing identity, being the matters that led to fulltime custody. There are a significant number of other matters commencing in 2001 in the Children’s Court, including assault occasioning and supplying drugs leading to Community Service Orders, periodic detention in 2004 in relation to stalking and having custody of offensive implements, assault occasioning in 2005 dealt with by a Community Service Order, a further assault occasioning dealt with by suspended sentence in 2010 and a further suspended sentence in 2014 for common assault.

7. His subjective case set out in a report of psychiatrist, Dr Furst, which is treated with a degree of caution as the Crown submits in the light of cases such as R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 396, does seem to be a reasonable basis upon which to proceed to sentence. It is clear that his assertions of engagement in MERIT and Adele House rehabilitation programmes are consistent with his record. As Mr Hughes points out, there had been a period of abstinence from offending and drugs until a breakdown of his relationship in late 2017, leading to commencement of methamphetamine use to which he attributes the robbery offences and acknowledges that the offending was motivated by his need to finance his drug habit.

8. Dr Furst diagnoses the offender with a substance-use disorder, chronic pain disorder, and a drug-induced psychosis, and recommends an intensive regime of future treatment and medication, and I would recommend that the report of Dr Furst be taken into account by the Justice Health whilst he is in custody.

9. There is no challenge by Mr Hughes to the Crown’s assertion that the offending in each case is around the midrange of objective seriousness, and that the R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 guideline factors are largely applicable, although it is acknowledged that the offender is not a young person with little or no criminal history. It is clear that there was a degree of planning involved in the offence with the use of the female accomplice. There was a limited degree of violence.

10. An aggravating factor is that he was on bail and mitigating factors identified are the plea of guilty and the expression of remorse conveyed to Dr Furst, albeit in an oblique fashion. If he follows the recommendations of Dr Furst in custody and under an extended period of supervision there would be reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

11. I take account as Mr Hughes points out, that drug addiction is to be taken into account in the way suggested in the R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 guideline, as going, in this case, to objective criminality and as a subjective circumstance, and as the basis for a finding of special circumstances.

12. There have been, as I have said, some limited attempts at rehabilitation in the past, and there is some slight amelioration of the moral culpability by reason of the subjective factors that are pointed to. General and specific deterrence of course are significant matters to take into account in this case.

13. The orders that I make are:

1. The offender is convicted of the offence.

2. Taking into account the Form 1 matter, I impose a sentence of four years imprisonment commencing 11 October 2018

3. I impose a non-parole period of two years and six months. He is eligible for release on 10 April 2021

4. I find special circumstances.

Note – These extempore remarks were revised without access to the court file.

**********

Decision last updated: 18 December 2019