R v Willis - [2020] NSWDC 135

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Willis [2020] NSWDC 135
Hearing dates: 27 February 2020
Decision date: 27 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months. Non parole period of 2 years 7 months.
For orders see [18] – [20].

Catchwords: SENTENCING - robbery armed with offensive weapon SENTENCING- relevant factors on sentence- on parole for similar offence on same store- symbolic offence committed to ensure return to gaol – institutionalised offender- background of profound deprivation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217
Category: Sentence
Parties: Warren Willis
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW(for the offender)
Ms N Olender (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00246563; 2019/00220392.

Sentence – ex tempore revised

On 5 August 2019, Warren Willis robbed a woman working at the BWS store in Burelli Street, Wollongong of $900 in cash. He was armed with a Stanley knife.
On 17 August 2019, Willis was back in gaol. I say “back in gaol” because he had been released to parole on 26 May 2019 to serve the balance of a term of three years’ imprisonment that I imposed upon him in 2017. That offence related to an armed robbery of the same liquor store in Burelli Street, Wollongong. Not for the first time in his short life Willis faces sentence for an offence or armed robbery, s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900; an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
How did it come to this? Born in 1993, his home life was blighted by drugs and violence. When he was nine years old Willis’s mother suicided. He was subject to continued violence from his father. He received some assistance from Family and Community Services and some psychological assistance. He was taken from his father and he was placed in a number of foster homes. Given his background, it is understandable that did not settle or make friends at school. Given his background, it is understandable that he can to the notice of police and the Childrens court.
Willis spent most of his teenage years in juvenile detention. Although he completed his year 10 equivalent, he has never lived a normal life in the community. As an adult, his criminal record reveals that his time in the community can be measured in months. The only gap in his New South Wales criminal record reflects a period he spent in Queensland; most of that time was spent in custody. When he did hold a job in Queensland, he stole from his employer.
I have reviewed the material that was before me when I sentenced him on the last occasion. A relatively lenient sentence was imposed. While I do not have my sentence judgment, a lenient was imposed because the…

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 Willis

Details

AGLC: R v Willis [2020] NSWDC 135
Case: [2020] NSWDC 135
Decision Date: 27 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Willis presented a sentencing issue following the defendant's conviction for robbery, armed with an offensive weapon. The defendant had a history of criminal activity, including being on parole for a similar offence when he committed the current robbery. This case required the court to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant’s criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the broader context of his life circumstances.

The primary legal issue was to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors of the defendant's background. The court had to consider the aggravating factor of the defendant's prior parole status and the symbolic nature of the offence, which appeared to be committed to ensure his return to prison. Additionally, the court had to weigh the profound deprivation and disadvantage in the defendant’s background against the seriousness of the current offence. The court acknowledged the defendant's institutionalised lifestyle and the impact of his deprived upbringing on his criminal conduct.

The court determined that while the defendant's criminal history and the current offence were serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that included rehabilitation. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. The sentencing took into account the defendant’s background of profound deprivation and his institutionalised lifestyle. The court’s decision also recognised the symbolic nature of the offence, which was committed to ensure the defendant’s return to prison. The court concluded that this sentence provided a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the need for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months. Non parole period of 2 years 7 months.

For orders see [18] – [20].

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 Willis [2020] NSWDC 135
Hearing dates:	27 February 2020
Decision date:	27 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months. Non parole period of 2 years 7 months. For orders see [18] – [20].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING - robbery armed with offensive weapon SENTENCING- relevant factors on sentence- on parole for similar offence on same store- symbolic offence committed to ensure return to gaol – institutionalised offender- background of profound deprivation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Henry v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162 Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Warren Willis Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW(for the offender) Ms N Olender (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00246563; 2019/00220392.