R v Steele [2021] NSWDC 75

R v Steele [2021] NSWDC 75

The offences were serious enough that no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate, but each offence was assessed as at the lower end of objective seriousness. The offender was young, had mental health and substance abuse issues, pleaded guilty early, was remorseful, had no prior convictions, had spent time in custody and quasi-custody, and had demonstrated strong rehabilitation and a low risk of recidivism. Taking proportionality, totality and parity into account, a 12-month aggregate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate and, because community safety was linked to continued rehabilitation and supervision, it should be served by way of an intensive correction order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Remarks on Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted of all five offences. For Sequences 2, 5, 8 and 9 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. For Sequence 7 he was convicted with no further penalty.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'armed With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'custody of Knife in a Public Place' 'young Offender' 'intensive Correction Order' 'quasi Custody' 'parity' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'assault With Intent to Rob in Company' 'armed With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'custody of Knife in a Public Place' 'young Offender' 'intensive Correction Order' 'quasi Custody' 'parity' 'rehabilitation']

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 / Remarks on Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for five offences including robbery in company, assault with intent to rob in company, armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, and custody of a knife in a public place.' "Whether the offender's youth, mental health issues, substance abuse, remorse, early guilty plea, rehabilitation and time in custody or quasi-custody mitigated sentence." "Whether parity with the co-offender's sentence required a similar outcome." 'Whether the custodial sentence should be served by way of an intensive correction order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious enough that no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate, but each offence was assessed as at the lower end of objective seriousness. The offender was young, had mental health and substance abuse issues, pleaded guilty early, was remorseful, had no prior convictions, had spent time in custody and quasi-custody, and had demonstrated strong rehabilitation and a low risk of recidivism. Taking proportionality, totality and parity into account, a 12-month aggregate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate and, because community safety was linked to continued rehabilitation and supervision, it should be served by way of an intensive correction order.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted of all five offences. For Sequences 2, 5, 8 and 9 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. For Sequence 7 he was convicted with no further penalty.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted of H74833251/2, armed with intent to commit an indictable offence pursuant to s 114(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'The offender is convicted of H74833251/5, robbery in company pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'The offender is convicted of H74833251/7, custody of knife in a...