R v Yildiz [2019] NSWDC 423

R v Yildiz [2019] NSWDC 423

The offence was slightly below mid-range for an offence of its kind, but given the offender's significant role in executing the planned robbery, her awareness that violence was at least on the cards, and the seriousness of the conduct, no sentence other than full-time custody was appropriate. The Court was not satisfied that she knew a firearm would be used and was not satisfied that she was genuinely remorseful, but accepted that her prospects of rehabilitation were reasonable. A 25% discount was allowed for the early offered guilty plea, and special circumstances justified a reduced non-parole ratio because of her age and first time in custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Robbery in Company / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'first Offender' 'remorse' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'first Offender' 'remorse' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence for Robbery in Company / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for the offender's contravention of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)." "The objective seriousness of the robbery in company, including the offender's role and awareness of violence." 'Whether the offender had knowledge that a firearm would be used.' 'Whether the offender had established remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether special circumstances justified reducing the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was slightly below mid-range for an offence of its kind, but given the offender's significant role in executing the planned robbery, her awareness that violence was at least on the cards, and the seriousness of the conduct, no sentence other than full-time custody was appropriate. The Court was not satisfied that she knew a firearm would be used and was not satisfied that she was genuinely remorseful, but accepted that her prospects of rehabilitation were reasonable. A 25% discount was allowed for the early offered guilty plea, and special circumstances justified a reduced non-parole ratio because of her age and first time in custody.

Court Disposition

Imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months.

Orders

  • ['The offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years after a 25% discount for the plea of guilty.' 'The non-parole period was fixed at 18 months, backdated by three months to date from 10 April 2019 and to expire on 9 October 2020.' 'A balance of 8 months was fixed to date from 10 October 2020 and to...