R v Artiel [2020] NSWDC 106

R v Artiel [2020] NSWDC 106

The offence was below the mid-range of objective seriousness: it involved a knife and a vulnerable service station employee, but limited planning, no actual physical violence, no explicit threatening words, and circumstances described as brazen, opportunistic and desperate. Although the R v Henry guideline was relevant, the offender's youth, deprived upbringing, emotional immaturity, remorse, earliest plea, strong rehabilitation, drug abstinence and good prospects justified a significant downward departure. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate, but a 22 month sentence could be served by intensive correction because rehabilitation and long-term community protection were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction in the community.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'armed Robbery With Knife' 'intensive Correction Order' 'plea of Guilty' 'youth and Rehabilitation' 'offending While on Bail' 'social Disadvantage and Bugmy Principles']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'armed Robbery With Knife' 'intensive Correction Order' 'plea of Guilty' 'youth and Rehabilitation' 'offending While on Bail' 'social Disadvantage and Bugmy Principles']

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 Sentencing / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What was the objective seriousness of the offence under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'Whether the R v Henry guideline applied and whether a significant departure from it was justified.' "What weight should be given to the offender's youth, deprived upbringing, emotional immaturity, remorse, early plea, rehabilitation and drug abstinence." 'Whether no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate under s 5(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be served by way of intensive correction in the community under s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was below the mid-range of objective seriousness: it involved a knife and a vulnerable service station employee, but limited planning, no actual physical violence, no explicit threatening words, and circumstances described as brazen, opportunistic and desperate. Although the R v Henry guideline was relevant, the offender's youth, deprived upbringing, emotional immaturity, remorse, earliest plea, strong rehabilitation, drug abstinence and good prospects justified a significant downward departure. No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate, but a 22 month sentence could be served by intensive correction because rehabilitation and long-term community protection were...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction in the community.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'Having regard to his plea of guilty the offender is sentenced to a term of 22 months imprisonment.' 'Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the sentence is to be served by way of Intensive Correction in the community.' 'The offender must not commit any...