R v Thornton

Case [2024] NSWDC 556


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thornton [2024] NSWDC 556
Hearing dates: 26 July 2024
Date of orders: 27 September 2024
Decision date: 27 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: D Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:

See [58]-[59]

Catchwords:

Armed robbery with wounding - s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 – two offenders – joint criminal enterprise – offenders armed with replica firearm and machete - extensive criminal history – institutionalisation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:

R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346

Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
The offender (Mr Thornton)
Representation:

For the Crown:
Ms S Hatch, Solicitor

For the offender:
Mr Conwell of Counsel
File Number(s): 2022/00199592

JUDGMENT

  1. Todd Thornton appears for sentence today, having pleaded guilty on 13 May 2024 to a charge of armed robbery with wounding, an offence contrary to s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment. A standard non-parole period of 7 years applies. Both of those features are relevant as guideposts, nominated by Parliament, that reflect the seriousness of the offending and are to be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence.

  2. The victim in the armed robbery with wounding matter, was a young man named NA, who was 18 years of age at the time of the offence. The offence was committed on 1 July 2022. Mr Thornton has asked the Court to take into account two further matters. One being another offence, contrary to s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900, committed at the same time against another young man, JL, and a further offence of stealing from a dwelling, which involved the theft of jewellery and $3,500.

  3. The maximum penalty for the related s 98 offence is the same as the matter before sentence. The steal from dwelling carries the maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

  4. As the plea was entered on the first day of trial, the parties are in agreement that by way of s 25D(3)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the appropriate discount for the utilitarian value of that plea is 5%.

  5. There was a sentence hearing on 26 July 2024. Agreed facts were tendered, and because they are not very lengthy, I will read them onto the record. They read as follows:

"At the time of the offences, Mr Thornton was 25 years of age. He committed the offences with Mr Pritchard who was 28, so a little older. The victims, NA, aged 18; JL aged 31; and JA, aged 54. JA is the father of NA.

The victims lived together with NA's brother, LA, in a three-bedroom home in Bennelong Place, Kincumber. The offenders were not known to the victims. On 1 July 2022, NA had finished work and was walking home. As he neared home, he observed a car driving erratically past him at speed which turned into his street, and he ran towards his house.

JL was present at…

Continue reading R v Thornton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Thornton [2024] NSWDC 556
Case
[2024] NSWDC 556
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Thornton and another co-accused, were convicted of armed robbery with wounding under section 98 of the Crimes Act 1900. They were found to be part of a joint criminal enterprise, armed with a replica firearm and a machete, during which the victim was wounded. Thornton had a significant criminal history and a history of institutionalisation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether Thornton's criminal history and institutionalisation were relevant to the sentencing process. It was also necessary to assess the applicability of joint criminal enterprise principles in this context, and to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence committed.

In its reasoning, the court held that Thornton's criminal history and institutionalisation were not relevant to the sentencing process. It was noted that the joint criminal enterprise principles were applicable, but the court determined that Thornton's level of participation in the offence warranted a lesser sentence. The court took into account the mitigating factors and the need for deterrence, ultimately arriving at a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of Thornton.

The final orders of the court were that Thornton be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific parole conditions, reflecting the balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [58]-[59]

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.