R v Soli

Case [2022] NSWDC 330


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Soli [2022] NSWDC 330
Hearing dates: 31/3/22
Date of orders: 31/3/22
Decision date: 31 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months with a NPP of 1 year 9 months.

Catchwords:

Crime – Sentence – Robbery armed with an offensive implement

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105

R v Henry & Ors [1999] 46 NSWLR 346

R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 446

Category:Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Jonah Soli - Offender
Representation: Mr Fitzhardinge for Crown
Ms Hussey for Offender
File Number(s): 2021/134647

sentence – ex tempore revised

  1. Jonah Soli is before the court for sentence on an offence of robbery armed with an offensive instrument. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty is, of course, an important guidepost to which I have had regard in the sentencing exercise. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and I will, therefore, allow a discount of 25% on account of the utilitarian value of that plea of guilty. Evidence was today tendered on the sentence proceedings on behalf of the Crown, and also for the offender, after which I heard oral submissions, supplementary to the written submissions that had earlier been filed. The offender also gave evidence today.

FACTS

  1. The facts of the offence are agreed and are as follows. On Sunday 7 March 2021, the victim, Mr Parsons went for a drive to Newcastle. He drove to the home of a friend, Mr Brooker, at Telarah. They then drove along the M1 motorway, and along the Newcastle Link Road, and went to various addresses around Wallsend, including to a McDonalds carpark. They then decided to drive home. It was close to midnight when the victim was driving back along the Newcastle Link Road and onto the Hunter Expressway. He was planning on driving to Branxton and returning along the New England Highway. About two kilometres before the Branxton turnoff, the victim noted a car with flashing lights in his rear-view mirror. He then pulled over to the side of the road, and the car with the flashing lights pulled in behind him. The car had its high beams on. It was later identified to be a silver-grey hatchback.

  2. The victim got out of the car and started walking towards the rear of his own car while his companion, Mr Brooker, remained in the victim’s car, in the passenger seat. The offender, Mr Soli, was sitting in the passenger seat of the silver grey hatchback, which was stopped behind the victim’s car. The driver of the hatchback remained in the car for the whole incident that I will, in a moment, describe. However, the driver of that vehicle apparently had a torch, or a…

Continue reading R v Soli

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Soli [2022] NSWDC 330
Case
[2022] NSWDC 330
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Soli, was convicted of robbery while armed with an offensive implement. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution argued for a substantial term of imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to deter similar conduct. The defence sought a more lenient sentence, citing the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record and other mitigating factors.

The court identified several key issues. It had to consider the gravity of the offence, the need to protect the community, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to weigh the mitigating factors presented by the defence, such as the defendant's background and any remorse shown. In assessing these issues, the court relied on previous cases and statutory guidelines to ensure a balanced and just outcome.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the severity of the crime, noting that the defendant had used an offensive implement during the robbery, which heightened the danger posed to the victim. The court found that while there were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the need to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and provided adequate deterrence. The court ultimately determined that a term of imprisonment of three years and two months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. This sentence aimed to achieve justice for the victim, protect the community, and provide an opportunity for the defendant's rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Soli, be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and two months, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of the offence's gravity, the need for deterrence, and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months with a NPP of 1 year 9 months.

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.