R v Smith

Case [2025] NSWDC 71

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 71
Hearing dates: 24 October 2024, 24 January 2025, 14 March 2025
Date of orders: 14 March 2025
Decision date: 14 March 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:

[85]

Catchwords:

CRIME — violent offences — robbery in company

SENTENCING — aggravating factors — vulnerable victim — mitigating factors — not part of a planned or organised criminal activity — plea of guilty — deprived upbringing – mental health — co-offenders — parity

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57

DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82

DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 Aust Crim R 1

Giles-Adam v Preka; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122

Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462

Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown, Bryce Smith
Representation: Crown: Ms C Diebe
Defence: Mr J Jeffrey
File Number(s): 2023/00337085
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to the following offence:

  1. Sequence 1 – Robbery in company.

  1. The plea of guilty was adhered to on the sentence hearing.

  2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty for the offence is an indication of its seriousness and acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.

  3. Admitted on behalf of the Crown were the following:

  1. Charge certificate

  2. Agreed facts   

  3. CCTV of incident (USB)

  4. Criminal history

  5. Custodial history

  6. State Parole authority documents

  7. Sentencing Assessment Report dated 6 January 2025

  8. Sentencing Assessment Report dated 11 March 2025.

  9. Updated Custodial History

  1. Admitted on behalf of the offender was the following:

  1. Psychological report of Vanessa Edwige dated 5 October 2024

  2. Letter of the Glen Rehabilitation Centre

  3. Letter of Claude Robinson of Rainbow Lodge dated 26 September 2024.

Agreed facts

  1. Around 3:00 am on 15 October 2023, the victim (aged 15 at the time of the offending) and his female friend had caught the light rail from Town Hall to Central Station in the Sydney CBD. Having arrived at Central Station the offender and his co-offender approached the victim and his friend. The offender tapped the victim on the shoulder attempting to engage in conversation to which there was no response from the victim. The offender then asked to speak to the victim separately from his friend. He took his arm and walked him around the corner, out of sight.

  2. The co-offender stood some distance away from the offender at this point and did not say anything. Once around the corner the co-offender stood some metres away whilst the offender and the victim had a conversation about where he lived, before asking the victim to take his jumper off. The CCTV footage captures the co-offender initially filming the interaction between the victim and the offender before…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2025] NSWDC 71
Case
[2025] NSWDC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant was charged with robbery in company. The defendant and an accomplice robbed a convenience store at knifepoint, targeting a vulnerable victim who was alone at the time. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, and the case proceeded to sentencing.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the identification and weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. Aggravating factors included the use of a weapon and the vulnerability of the victim, while mitigating factors included the defendant’s plea of guilty, his deprived upbringing, mental health issues, and the fact that the offence was not premeditated. The court also considered the principle of parity, ensuring that the defendant’s sentence would be commensurate with that of his co-offenders.

The court found that while the aggravating factors were significant, the mitigating factors also played an important role in the sentencing decision. The judge took into account the defendant’s guilty plea, which typically results in a reduced sentence, as well as his background, including his deprived upbringing and mental health issues. The court emphasised that the offence, although serious, was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity. After weighing all factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating circumstances. The final orders included a custodial sentence, along with directions for rehabilitation and mental health support.

Orders

Orders of the court

[85]

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.