R v Akil [2024] NSWDC 460

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Akil [2024] NSWDC 460 Hearing dates: 25 July 2024 Date of orders: 25 July 2024 Decision date: 25 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: D Barrow SC DCJ Decision: Sentence Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Robbery armed with an offensive weapon – s 97(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346 Category: Sentence Parties: Mr Akil (the Offender) Rex (Crown) Representation: Mr Khan, Counsel for the offender Ms Thoms-Packer, Solicitor for the Crown File Number(s): 2022/00346968

JUDGMENT

Sentence 1. Hassan Akil, who is now 26, appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s 97 (1) of the Crimes Act 1900, a charge of whilst armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, robbing Shreya Simkhada of $1200 on 13 November 2022. 2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, there is no standard non-parole period. 3. The offender was committed for trial on 31 August 2023 and arraigned on 29 September 2023. A trial date was fixed for 17 June 2024, however, on 29 May 2024 the Crown was advised that he intended to enter a plea of guilty. It was entered on 4 June 2024. The common position between the parties is that he is entitled to a 10% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea pursuant to s 25D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. I accept that. 4. The offender has been in custody since 17 November 2022. At the time of the offending he was on parole. That parole was revoked from 17 November 2022 and the first six months and twelve days of the time he spent on remand was also time spent serving the balance of parole. It is a matter of aggravation on sentence that this offence was committed on parole. It does not make the objective seriousness of the offending any greater, but it is a factor on sentence. 5. Relatedly, it is also an issue as to questions of totality. I have a discretion as to when any further sentence should be dated from. It has been submitted on his behalf that 50% of this period would be an appropriate exercise of that discretion considering that parole was largely revoked because of this further offending. As I will come to, he was doing very badly on parole in any event.