R v Hintz [2022] NSWDC 750

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hintz [2022] NSWDC 750 Hearing dates: 18 August 2022 Date of orders: 18 August 2022 Decision date: 18 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months Catchwords: CRIME – armed robbery SENTENCE – relevant factors on sentence – unrepresented offender – young first offender – application of Henry guideline –childhood trauma – drug use need for rehabilitation programmes – impact of COVID – special circumstances – role of State Parole Authority Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) (1999) (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Legge [2007] NSWCCA 244 Category: Sentence Parties: Wade Hintz (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown) Representation: Solicitors: K McCrossin (for Director of Public Prosecutions) W Hintz (self-represented) File Number(s): 2021/225089

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction 1. This morning Wade Hintz adhered to a plea of guilty that he had entered in the Local Court to an offence or Robbery Armed with an offensive weapon. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment: s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That maximum penalty is one important guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion. 2. Hintz pleaded guilty in the Local Court, he co‑operated with the authorities. The utilitarian value of his plea must be recognised by a reduction in 25% in the otherwise appropriate sentence. 3. The facts of the matter, to which I will refer shortly, require consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal's guideline judgment of R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111. I am required to take that guideline into account: s 43A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW); Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160. It is a guideline not a tramline:"' R v Legge [2007] NSWCCA 244. It is not a fetter on the discretion of the Court, but it must be taken into account. It is important to note that one rationale for the guideline in Henry was the purported undue leniency shown by judges of this Court to young offenders who commit armed robberies.