R v Charrouf [2006] NSWDC 142

R v Charrouf [2006] NSWDC 142

The offences were objectively serious because they involved groups of young men taking property from victims going about lawful activities, with aggravating features including offending while on a bond, offending in company, bodily harm in the Kings Cross offence, vulnerability and planning in the pizza offence, and a significant criminal history. The guilty pleas warranted discounts of 10 percent for the Kings Cross offence and 20 percent for the pizza offence, and the offender's custodial hardship was considered, but remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation were not established. Custodial sentences with non-parole periods were therefore imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas on Two Indictments
Outcome
The offender was sentenced to imprisonment on both matters, with an overall non-parole period of three years and nine months and an overall head sentence of five years.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'guilty Plea' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravating Factors' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'guilty Plea' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravating Factors' 'non Parole Period']

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 Law Sentence / Sentence After Guilty Pleas on Two Indictments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What sentence should be imposed for the offender's involvement in the 6 July 2005 pizza delivery offence." "What sentence should be imposed for the offender's involvement in the 11 December 2005 Kings Cross offence." 'Whether aggravating factors, guilty plea discounts, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and hardship in custody should affect sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were objectively serious because they involved groups of young men taking property from victims going about lawful activities, with aggravating features including offending while on a bond, offending in company, bodily harm in the Kings Cross offence, vulnerability and planning in the pizza offence, and a significant criminal history. The guilty pleas warranted discounts of 10 percent for the Kings Cross offence and 20 percent for the pizza offence, and the offender's custodial hardship was considered, but remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation were not established. Custodial sentences with non-parole periods were therefore imposed.

Court Disposition

The offender was sentenced to imprisonment on both matters, with an overall non-parole period of three years and nine months and an overall head sentence of five years.

Orders

  • ['For the offence of 6 July 2005, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and a half years commencing on 12 December 2005 and a head sentence of four years.' 'For the offence of 11 December 2005, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and...