R v TROTT & ROBERTSON [2011] NSWDC 236

R v TROTT & ROBERTSON [2011] NSWDC 236

No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate for either offender, but the sentences would be for no more than two years. A suspended sentence was inappropriate because it would not sufficiently punish or deter the offenders or reflect the seriousness of a violent robbery in company. Given Mr Trott's rehabilitation prospects and that he was not the prime mover, and given Mr Robertson's lack of prior convictions despite being the prime mover, each offender was referred for assessment of suitability to serve the indicated sentence by way of an intensive correction order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / After Pleas of Guilty to Robbery in Company; Adjourned for Assessment as to Suitability for Intensive Correction Orders
Outcome
Each offender was referred for assessment as to suitability for an intensive correction order; sentence was adjourned.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'violence' 'breach of the Peace' 'intensive Correction Order' 'suspended Sentence' 'parity in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'violence' 'breach of the Peace' 'intensive Correction Order' 'suspended Sentence' 'parity in Sentencing']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / After Pleas of Guilty to Robbery in Company; Adjourned for Assessment as to Suitability for Intensive Correction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for each offender's robbery in company offence." 'Whether the sentences should be suspended or served by way of an intensive correction order or another custodial alternative.' 'How parity should be applied between the co-offenders given Mr Robertson was the prime mover but had no prior convictions, while Mr Trott had prior offending and was on parole and probation.' 'What weight should be given to rehabilitation, intoxication, prior criminal history, conditional liberty, and the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas.']

Ratio Decidendi

No penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate for either offender, but the sentences would be for no more than two years. A suspended sentence was inappropriate because it would not sufficiently punish or deter the offenders or reflect the seriousness of a violent robbery in company. Given Mr Trott's rehabilitation prospects and that he was not the prime mover, and given Mr Robertson's lack of prior convictions despite being the prime mover, each offender was referred for assessment of suitability to serve the indicated sentence by way of an intensive correction order.

Court Disposition

Each offender was referred for assessment as to suitability for an intensive correction order; sentence was adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Each offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability for intensive correction orders as a means of serving the sentence.' 'Each offender is to be granted bail on current terms until appearing again after the assessment has been completed.' 'Proceedings adjourned to 17 February 2012 at 2pm for sentence.']