R v RG [2000] NSWSC 1057

R v RG [2000] NSWSC 1057

Because RG was twelve at the time of the robbery in company, the offence was not a serious indictable offence for the purposes of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, his role was identical to PL's, he pleaded guilty, undertook to give evidence, had rehabilitation prospects and had already spent 176 days in custody, it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to exercise Children's Court powers and impose a two year probation order rather than a custodial sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Robbery in Company by a Juvenile / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The prisoner was released on a two year probation order subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' "children's Court Sentencing Powers" "non Publication of Young Person's Name" 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'probation Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'juvenile Justice'] ['robbery in Company' "children's Court Sentencing Powers" "non Publication of Young Person's Name" 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'probation Order']

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 for Robbery in Company by a Juvenile / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether RG should be dealt with according to law or under the less harsh regime of the Children's Court pursuant to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987." 'What sentence was appropriate for a juvenile who pleaded guilty to robbery in company, taking into account age, role, guilty plea, undertaking to give evidence, rehabilitation prospects, time in custody and parity with co-offender PL.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because RG was twelve at the time of the robbery in company, the offence was not a serious indictable offence for the purposes of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, his role was identical to PL's, he pleaded guilty, undertook to give evidence, had rehabilitation prospects and had already spent 176 days in custody, it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to exercise Children's Court powers and impose a two year probation order rather than a custodial sentence.

Court Disposition

The prisoner was released on a two year probation order subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['A probation order is imposed for two years.' 'RG is to obey the reasonable directions and guidance of the Department of Juvenile Justice.' 'RG is to attend programs as directed by the Manager of the Intensive Programs Unit.' 'RG is to attend counselling as directed by the Manager of the Intensive Programs Unit.'...