R v Faletau [2016] NSWDC 380

R v Faletau [2016] NSWDC 380

The offences were objectively more serious than the Henry guideline case because they involved a significant prior criminal history, more than limited planning, actual violence, an imitation firearm capable of inducing fear like a firearm, offending in homes, and multiple victims, although only small amounts were taken and the pleas were late. Some accumulation was required because the two robberies were discrete offences against different victims with different proceeds. However, parity with co-offenders, the offender's circumstances, and special circumstances meant the effective non-parole period should not exceed four years, producing a total effective sentence of five years and ten...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Two Counts on a Fresh Indictment
Outcome
Offender convicted on two counts of aggravated armed robbery and sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Armed Robbery' 'replica Firearm' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'criminal History']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Armed Robbery' 'replica Firearm' 'form 1 Offences' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'criminal History']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Two Counts on a Fresh Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two counts of aggravated armed robbery contrary to Crimes Act 1900 s97(2), taking into account the Form 1 offences.' 'Whether the offences were objectively more serious than the armed robbery guideline case in R v Henry.' "Whether being in company, violence, and commission in victims' homes were aggravating factors." "What allowance should be made for the offender's late guilty pleas." 'How parity with co-offenders Williams and Roberts should affect sentence and the non-parole period.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a non-parole period different from the statutory ratio.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were objectively more serious than the Henry guideline case because they involved a significant prior criminal history, more than limited planning, actual violence, an imitation firearm capable of inducing fear like a firearm, offending in homes, and multiple victims, although only small amounts were taken and the pleas were late. Some accumulation was required because the two robberies were discrete offences against different victims with different proceeds. However, parity with co-offenders, the offender's circumstances, and special circumstances meant the effective non-parole period should not exceed four years, producing a total effective sentence of five years and ten...

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on two counts of aggravated armed robbery and sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 10 months with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Orders

  • ['On the charge involving Amanda Robb, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 28 February 2014 and expiring on 27 February 2018, with a further period of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months expiring on 29 June 2019; total sentence 5 years and 4...