R v Perksane

FACTS

3. The facts are agreed and, in essence, are as follows. The two victims were a Mr Pullimamidi and a Mr Nandy. They were both 24 years of age. About 1pm on 5 May 2024 they were both at the Ultra service station at Boolaroo where they were employees. Mr Pullimamidi had just finished his shift and was handing over to Mr Nandy and they were talking behind the counter in the service station.

4. At about 1.09pm the offender entered the service station, walked directly to the side of the counter and through the open doorway such that he was then behind the counter. The offender then approached the victims, holding up a pair of scissors in his right hand with the blades pointed towards them. The victims backed away from the offender towards the till. The offender pointed at the till and said, “Open the till. I need the money.” Mr Pullimamidi opened the till and the offender took out some notes, that is monetary notes, and then left.

5. The incident was captured on CCTV footage which was inside the service station. Police arrived at about 1.20pm and obtained information from the two victims as well as reviewing some CCTV footage. Mr Pullimamidi described the instrument in the offender’s hand as a knife but then described it as “like a normal scissor”. Mr Nandy said that the instrument, at least from his perspective, looked like a red-handled knife, but he acknowledged it was difficult to see because the offender had his hand wrapped around it.

6. Police made inquiries with local businesses and bus services and fairly quickly identified the offender. At about 2.48 that afternoon they went to his residence where they found the offender seated on the floor with his hands on his head looking towards the ground. The clothing he was wearing matched the clothing worn by the male as seen in the CCTV footage. He was searched and arrested.

7. Police asked, “Where’s the knife now?” and the offender said, “What knife? It was scissors. They are in my bag,” and the officer also asked, “Where’s the money? Did you spend it?”, and the offender said that it was in the bag also.

8. Police then seized a black “bumbag” which was on the floor near the offender. Inside they found a pair of red-handled scissors and $240 in cash. The offender was arrested and taken into custody. Those are the relevant facts.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

9. The maximum penalty for the offence marks it as potentially a very serious one. Any form of robbery has been regarded very seriously by the courts for a long time. That is in part because robbery is not just a crime involving the theft of property. Rather, and as was said by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Henry and Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111, robbery is an offence against persons. The fear usually involved in any armed robbery and the usual effects on a victim of such an offence points to the need for serious punishment.

10. There are a number of features of the armed robbery before this Court today which inform as to its relative seriousness in an objective sense.

11. Firstly, there were in effect two victims.

12. Secondly, given that they were working as service station attendants, they were somewhat vulnerable.

13. Thirdly, while there was no direct violence, there was a clear threat of it.

14. Fourthly, the two victims were effectively trapped by the offender.

15. Fifthly, the offensive weapon was a pair of scissors. The photograph of the scissors indicates that they were a type of “safety scissors” with rounded points. While they were no doubt capable of inflicting a serious wound, it is unlikely they would have caused a fatal injury. Nonetheless, in the stress of the moment, the victims would not have had the opportunity to assess the exact nature of the weapon, and would likely have perceived it as some sort of stabbing or cutting implement, which to a substantial degree it was.

16. Sixthly, the amount of property taken was relatively small, being $240 cash.

17. Seventhly, the offence was quite brief in time, however, that is a feature of many robberies and, as was said in Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48, the short duration of the offence does little to lessen its seriousness, given the frightening nature of such an incident.

18. It was initially submitted by the Crown that the offence was committed for financial gain, however, this submission was withdrawn in light of the medical evidence about the offender’s state of mind at the time.

19. I have taken into account also that the offence was unsophisticated and involved little or no planning.

20. In my view, it is an offence that is below the mid-range and towards the lower end of objective seriousness.

21. The offence was also committed while the offender was the subject of a Community Correction Order which included a condition that he be of good behaviour. This conditional liberty does not increase the objective seriousness of the armed robbery offence, however, it is an aggravating matter in the overall sentencing exercise.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

22. There is a Victim Impact Statement from one of the victims. The Crown does not rely upon it as an aggravating matter, however, it confirms what must be expected from an offence of this kind, namely, that it was a shocking experience for the victim which has had some lasting effects on him.

SUBJECTIVE MATTERS

23. Turning to subjective matters. The offender is now aged 44. His criminal history does not assist him, especially as it includes prior matters for other robberies and assaults.

24. His subjective case has been illuminated by a number of documents. The report of psychiatrist Dr Olav Nielssen of 14 February 2025 was prepared primarily, it seems, for the purposes of considering the offender’s fitness to plead and be tried. Dr Nielssen found the offender fit to plead but noted that he has longstanding mental health issues and refers also to some personal background. This includes the fact that the offender reported a “good childhood” but had never had paid employment or an intimate relationship of any kind. Dr Nielssen noted that the offender’s intention is to return to the group home where he previously had been living.

25. In particular, Dr Nielssen noted after a review of medical reports that, while the offender is likely of superior intelligence, he was firmly diagnosed in early adult life to be affected by schizophrenia. Dr Nielssen notes that the offender confirmed the allegations set out in the Crown Case Statement as being correct but said he did not know why he had done these things other than to say that he was “hearing voices” and “was delusional”. Dr Nielssen confirms that the offender suffers from epilepsy with frequent seizures since being in custody. Ultimately Dr Nielssen concluded that the offender experiences the following medical issues; Autism Spectrum Disorder, Schizophrenia, Epilepsy and Substance Use Disorder.

26. Dr Nielssen concluded that the offender’s experience of custody is made more onerous than for other inmates, especially because he has spent long periods in observation cells without stimulation where his symptoms would be very distressing.

27. Amongst the material there is also the report of Dr Andrew White who has been the offender’s treating doctor whilst in custody. He notes that the offender has a longstanding diagnosis of schizophrenia which has been substantially resistant to treatment and that he also has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

28. Dr White notes that the offender’s experience of the custodial environment has been extremely difficult, both for him and for those trying to manage him. The offender frequently has episodes of screaming and wailing which are prolonged, and will present problems in placing him in a cell with another inmate which ordinarily would be indicated due to his epilepsy. However, this has been a major challenge as there are few inmates prepared to put up with the offender’s conduct, and so various unsatisfactory compromises have had to be made. The offender’s behaviour has also made him a target for assaults by other inmates and he has been assaulted on several occasions.

29. The doctor notes that the offender has, however, been compliant with his medication in custody and says that, from the psychiatric perspective, there is little to be gained by keeping the offender in custody any longer. He adds that the offender’s mental health is more likely to improve in the community with a high level of supervision and support.

30. The Court is also assisted by the reports of Long Bay Hospital psychiatrist Dr Liz Jackson from September and December 2021, which were prepared subsequent to the offender entering custody in August 2021 in relation to earlier offending. Dr Jackson’s reports confirm diagnoses of schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorder and note the history of polysubstance abuse.

31. I have also been referred, and this comprises part of the evidence placed before the Court, to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Kirkwood v R [2006] NSWCCA 181 which relates to the offender himself when using another name. That is a decision which confirms that in 2005 the offender was likely unfit to be tried due to his mental health diagnosis, to which Dr Nielssen and others have referred. This is also consistent with the report of psychiatrist Dr Bench of October 2021.

32. In DPP(Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 McLellan CJ at CL summarised the principles that apply when an offender is suffering from mental illness. They can be summarised in the following manner.

33. Firstly, where the state of a person’s mental health contributes to the commission of the offence in a material way, the offender’s moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence.

34. Second, it may also, however, have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence, resulting in a reduction in the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed.

35. Thirdly, it may mean that a custodial sentence may weigh more heavily on the person. Because the sentence will be more onerous for that person, the length of the prison term or the conditions under which it is served may in some cases be reduced.

36. Fourthly, an offender’s mental health may reduce or eliminate the significance of specific deterrence.

37. Fifthly however, and conversely, it may be that because of a person’s mental illness they present more of a danger to the community. In those circumstances, considerations of specific deterrence may result in an increased sentence.

38. I have taken into account all of those principles.

39. I have already set out the previous diagnoses that relate to the offender and his background which includes a significant period during which he has been affected by those various mental health conditions.

40. There is a Sentencing Assessment Report before the Court. That document notes that at the time of the offending, the offender’s NDIS plan was undergoing a change in providers, and that this resulted in reduced support for the offender for several months. Given this, and the mental health background that I have already set out, I am satisfied that the offender’s mental health issues contributed substantially to the offending, and that this operates to reduce his moral culpability to a substantial degree. I also accept that for this reason this is not a case in which general deterrence should be given much weight.

41. Given the offender’s general mental health issues and the effects on him of his schizophrenia with its auditory hallucinations and the undisputed link between these things and the offending, I also consider that the importance of personal deterrence is reduced to some degree. The importance of personal deterrence is not, however, eliminated altogether, given that the offender in my view does retain some level of impulse control. This conclusion follows from Dr Nielssen’s observation that the offender has survived in the community for relatively long periods of time.

42. I also accept that custody is more difficult for the offender by reason of his mental illness.

43. These are matters which together should operate to reduce the appropriate sentence and the non-parole period. On the other hand, the offender’s mental illness means that he does continue to represent some risk to the community, and this is a matter that also needs to be balanced.

PROSPECTS AND RISK

44. On the topic of prospects of rehabilitation, Dr Nielssen notes that the offender has survived, as I have already set out, for relatively long periods in the community, and would be expected to manage for longer with the right support. Dr Nielssen notes that the offender’s condition has “burnt out” in the years since he first met the offender, and that the decline in the offender’s substance use should further improve his prognosis.

45. The letter of Ms Nicola Lennon of “Just COS Support Coordination” notes that the offender has NDIS approved support due to his diagnoses of Schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorder. His current NDIS support is operative until 3 April 2026 and includes support on a 24/7 basis. She also notes that the public guardian has decision-making authority for the offender and is supportive of the proposed placement of the offender upon his release to supported independent living accommodation in Chisholm.

46. This is consistent with the letter from the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian which notes that the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 12 March this year appointed the public guardian to make decisions about the offender’s accommodation and other services including medical and dental.

47. The Sentencing Assessment Report notes that the offender expressed no insight and minimised the impact of his offending on the victims. This is an obvious concern. However, it is probably not surprising, given the nature of the offender’s mental health diagnoses to which I have earlier referred. The lack of insight, however, is another sign that there is a material risk of similar offending in the future unless, as Dr Nielssen suggests, the offender has adequate support around him in the community.

DETERMINATION

48. Turning then to my ultimate determination, I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Each of those matters are of relevance, however, that is subject to what I have earlier said to the effect that the importance of general deterrence is in this case substantially reduced and that the importance of personal deterrence is reduced to some degree.

49. I am satisfied for the purposes of s 5 of that Act that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.

50. In the decision which I earlier cited of R v Henry and Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111, the Court of Criminal Appeal of this State noted a number of features that commonly arise with armed robbery offences. With regard to those common features and the facts of this case, I note the following.

51. The offender is not young and his criminal history is not short. The weapon was a pair of scissors, which I have already discussed. There was little or no planning. There was no actual violence but a real threat of it. The victims were vulnerable. There was a relatively small amount of money taken. There was a plea of guilty but its significance is reduced somewhat because in my view this was a strong Crown case.

52. In the Henry guideline decision, the Court suggested a range of sentence before a 10% discount in that case of a head sentence of between four years five months and five years six months. In R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105 at paras 93-94 it was explained that the guideline in Henry involved a discount for a relatively late plea of 10%. As the Court noted in Harris, when the greater discount of 25% is taken into account, the guideline head sentence range arising from the Henry decision is about three years four months to four years two months, with a suggested non-parole period in the range of two years six months to three years one month.

53. The guideline judgment is of course not prescriptive, but it is an important guide to which I have had regard. However, I need to balance this against the extenuating circumstances arising from the very substantial mental health issues that arise in this case. This includes not only the contribution of those mental health issues to the offending, but also the unchallenged evidence of treating health professionals that keeping the offender in custody is achieving very little, if anything, and that his condition, and therefore it seems to me his future prospects, are likely to be improved by his being in the community where there is significant support ready and available for him.

54. I intend to make an adjustment by reason of special circumstances in this case, given my satisfaction that the offender’s experience of custody has been very onerous and also because in my view there is a need for a lengthy period of supervision in the community once he is released.

55. I impose a head sentence of two years seven months. I impose a non-parole period of one year four months. They will date from 5 May 2024. The head sentence will expire on 4 December 2026, the non-parole period on 4 September 2025.

56. Ms Crown and Ms Buchanan, anything to raise?

57. TOLHURST: No, your Honour.

58. BUCHANAN: No, your Honour.

59. HIS HONOUR: Ms Buchanan, you will speak with your client, no doubt.

**********