R v SL; R v RT; R v WS - [2008] NSWSC 651

CITATION: R v SL; R v RT; R v WS [2008] NSWSC 651

HEARING DATE(S): 6 & 12 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION:
Sentencing order for SL
1. In respect of the offence of robbery with a dangerous weapon I sentence the offender, SL, to a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months commencing on 6 January 2007 and expiring on 5 October 2009 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 5 October 2011.
Sentencing order for WS
1. In respect of the offence of robbery with a dangerous weapon I sentence the offender, WS, to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing on 11 June 2006 and expiring on 10 September 2008 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 10 September 2010.
2. I direct that the balance of the non-parole period be served in a juvenile detention centre.
3. I direct that a copy of these sentencing remarks be made available to the relevant parole authorities in order that every consideration be given to providing for WS’s release from detention at the expiration of the non-parole period. The calculation of sentence, in particular the non-parole period, has been fixed referable to the considerable assistance I have been given by officers of the Department of Juvenile Justice in reports tendered on sentence as to the services available and the extent of intervention called for in supervising WS on conditional liberty.
Sentencing order for RT
1. In respect of the offence of robbery with a dangerous weapon I sentence the offender, RT, to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing on 11 June 2006 and expiring on 10 September 2008 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 10 September 2010.
2. I direct that the balance of the non-parole period be served in a juvenile detention centre.
3. I direct that a copy of these sentencing remarks be made available to the relevant parole authorities in order that every consideration be given to providing for RT’s release from detention at the expiration of the non-parole period. The calculation of sentence, in particular the non-parole period, has been fixed referable to the considerable assistance I have been given by officers of the Department of Juvenile Justice in reports tendered on sentence as to the services available and the extent of intervention called for in supervising RT on conditional liberty.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - robbery with a dangerous weapon - child offenders - significance of age in circumstances of serious offending - established prospects of rehabilitation

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms Act 1996

CASES CITED: Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146
R v BB [2005] NSWCCA 215
R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292; 115 A Crim…

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 SL; R v RT; R v WS 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: [2008] NSWSC 651
Decision Date: 27 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved three separate appeals against sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The appellants, SL, RT, and WS, were all juveniles at the time of their offending. The court was asked to consider the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account their age, the seriousness of the offence, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The Crown submitted that the appellants should receive sentences equivalent to that of an adult, while the defence argued that their young age should be a mitigating factor.

The central issue for the court was the appropriate weight to be given to the appellants' age in sentencing. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offence with the potential for rehabilitation, considering the appellants were children at the time of their offending. The court had to determine whether the appellants' age should mitigate their sentence or whether the gravity of their crimes necessitated a harsher penalty, akin to that which an adult offender would receive.

The court concluded that, while the appellants' age was a mitigating factor, it was not sufficient to warrant a significantly lesser sentence. The gravity of the offence, involving the use of a dangerous weapon in a robbery, necessitated a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime. However, the court also recognised the appellants' potential for rehabilitation and their young age at the time of the offence. Ultimately, the court decided to impose sentences that were less severe than an adult would receive but still reflected the gravity of the crimes. The court found that the appellants had established prospects of rehabilitation, which was a crucial factor in determining the appropriate sentence.

The final orders of the court reflected the considerations outlined above. The court imposed sentences that were less severe than those typically given to adult offenders but were commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes. The court recognised the appellants' age and prospects for rehabilitation, while also acknowledging the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The sentences imposed were intended to reflect a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders