R v Marcus Kenneth BUCHANAN (aka BUCHANAAN) [2017] NSWDC 406

R v Marcus Kenneth BUCHANAN (aka BUCHANAAN) [2017] NSWDC 406

Each robbery was objectively serious and within the mid-range because the offender used a shortened .22 rifle, wore a disguise, acted in a pre-planned way, and committed two armed robberies in close sequence. Although the offender's deprived and unstable background was accepted, its mitigating effect was diminished by his extensive similar criminal history, lack of remorse, poor response to supervision, high risk of re-offending and lack of genuine interest in rehabilitation. No penalty other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate, and special circumstances were declined. An aggregate sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a 6 year non-parole period was imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Trial Following Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
Convicted on each count and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.
Legal Topics
['robbery While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Matters' 'indigenous Offender and Deprived Background' 'substance Abuse' 'prior Criminal History' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery While Armed With a Dangerous Weapon' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Matters' 'indigenous Offender and Deprived Background' 'substance Abuse' 'prior Criminal History' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'special Circumstances' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 / Sentence After Trial Following Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for two offences of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon contrary to section 92(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether each offence fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness.' "What effect should be given to the offender's deprived and unstable background as an Indigenous person." "What effect should be given to the offender's prior similar offending, high risk of re-offending, lack of remorse and poor prospects of rehabilitation." 'Whether special circumstances should be found to alter the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each robbery was objectively serious and within the mid-range because the offender used a shortened .22 rifle, wore a disguise, acted in a pre-planned way, and committed two armed robberies in close sequence. Although the offender's deprived and unstable background was accepted, its mitigating effect was diminished by his extensive similar criminal history, lack of remorse, poor response to supervision, high risk of re-offending and lack of genuine interest in rehabilitation. No penalty other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate, and special circumstances were declined. An aggregate sentence of 8 years imprisonment with a 6 year non-parole period was imposed.

Court Disposition

Convicted on each count and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.

Orders

  • ['Convicted on each count.' 'Indicative sentence for robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon at Target: 7 years imprisonment.' 'Indicative sentence for robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon at Coles: 7 years imprisonment.' 'Aggregate sentence: total term of imprisonment for 8 years comprising a non-parole...