R v Unus Hendricks

[2009] NSWDC 391

CITATION:	R v Unus HENDRICKS [2009] NSWDC 391
HEARING DATE(S):	11 December 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 December 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three years..
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Armed robbery
CASES CITED:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
PARTIES:	The Crown Unus Hendricks
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 09/11/1001
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Unus Hendricks pleaded guilty to an offence of armed robbery committed on 24 April 2009. On that day, the offender had been out drinking with some family members. He became intoxicated to the extent that he was asked to leave the premises where he had been drinking. As he was heading off, he took a spur of the moment decision to commit a very serious crime. He came across a damaged golf club, picked it up, and took it into the bottle shop at the East Hills Cellars. He went into the shop, raised the golf club into the air, and smashed it down on the counter a number of times. He said to the shop attended “Till, till”, and gestured towards the cash register. The shop attendant did not cooperate, probably because of the nature of the weapon (something I will discuss later). The shop attendant said “You will not get the money”, which caused the offender to once again smash the golf club on the counter, but this time he shattered the top of the glass counter and broke the head of the golf club.

2 There was a customer nearby purchasing a four-litre cask of wine. The shop attendant threw that cask at the offender and then picked up a hammer that was under the counter and held it raised up. On seeing this, the offender virtually gave in. He grabbed a few packets of cigarettes and ran away.

3 This offence was always going to be detected. The offender made no efforts to disguise himself and left behind the golf club handle and, most importantly, his fingerprints located on the cigarette shelves. The offender already had a criminal history and so his fingerprints were known to police. He was arrested on 7 May and has remained in custody since that date.

4 The offender was born to parents of South African origin. His parents separated when he was about ten, and the offender told a psychologist that before then he was subject to some violence at the hands of his father. His father would become drunk and be belligerent. He did reasonably well at school, however, and has a very positive relationship with his mother, who gave evidence before me today. He also has a positive relationship with his siblings. He did not finish high school, but left after gaining a School Certificate part way through year 11, in order to focus on getting a job. He was successful in doing it. Many in the area in which he was brought up are unemployed, but Mr Hendricks was not one of those. He had a number of jobs before getting one which he quite enjoyed, doing general warehouse duties for a printing firm. He was very happy with himself, and proud of what he had achieved. However, he lost that job, apparently because he did not have a forklift licence. He says in a letter addressed to me that this was “the day my life turned upside down”. He began drinking much more than he had, to the extent that he developed a reasonable problem with alcohol. He has also used drugs over the years.

5 The offender has a criminal history too, an offence of robbery committed whilst a juvenile, and, in 2007, a number of offences, which led to a s 9 bond and some fines. This is, however, the most serious offence that the offender has ever committed, and it is necessary that a substantial period of imprisonment is imposed.

6 Of course, the offender’s case today fits almost exactly into the usual case postulated in the guideline judgment of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, with one major difference, and that concerns the fact that in Henry the four to five year range was for a plea of guilty of limited utility. In this case, the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage.

7 I mentioned the weapon that the offender used. Most armed robberies involve weapons easily capable of having fatal results, such as a knife or a gun. Part of the terror which is felt by the victims of such robberies is no doubt due to those victims recognising that there is a real risk of death by having a gun pointing at them, or a violent criminal armed with a knife robbing them. Victims of armed robberies report, almost universally, significant consequences of those offences. Here, the offender, on the spur of the moment, picked up a golf club. It is a weapon much less likely to be fatal than a gun or a knife. That is another factor pointing in the offender’s favour when compared to the Henry guideline judgment.

8 There is no doubt that the offender is capable of being a productive member of society. He has a good work ethic, regarding his time in employment with some fondness. He has substantial family support. Not only his mother, but other family members are present in court today. Indeed, one of his brothers-in-law has offered him part-time employment doing some waterproofing work upon his release from custody to tide him over until he finds full-time work.

9 The offender expressed his remorse for what he had done, recognising the impact of his offence on the shopkeeper and the other customer, as well, and perhaps more importantly, as the effect of what he had done upon his family.

10 The offender does have good prospects of rehabilitation, although no doubt the Probation and Parole Service can assist him in that regard by recommending courses and supervising him whilst on parole. There are special circumstances in this case because of the benefit that the offender will gain from such supervision and courses. If he is assisted through the Probation and Parole Service to rehabilitate himself, then not only will the offender benefit, but the community will as well.

11 It is sometimes a depressing job sitting up here as a judge dealing with offenders who really are most likely to re-offend at an early stage of their release from custody, but I consider that this offender has, with the support of his family and the Probation and Parole Service, a very good chance to put this offending behind him. He is articulate, he is clever, and he wishes to do something with his life, in contrast to many other offenders dealt with by the courts. There is thus a great deal of hope for the offender’s future. Despite that, of course, he has to be punished for what he has done.

12 The guideline judgment of Henry was a response to community concern about the prevalence of armed robbery and the sentences imposed for it. For the reasons I have articulated, however, the sentence that I will impose is lower than the range suggested in the Henry guideline judgment.

13 The offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three years to date from 7 May 2009. This means that the offender is to be released to parole on 6 November 2010. The conditions of his release to parole are that he accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and that he attend all courses, counselling, programmes, and the like, as are required or recommended by the Probation and Parole Service; for example, attendance at Narcotics Anonymous, Alcohol Anonymous, and the SMART programme referred to by Dr Seidler in her report.

**********