R v Renton [2002] NSWCCA 74 | Case summary

1 DUNFORD J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed on the applicant Deborah Anne Renton who pleaded guilty to seven counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon at the Central Local Court on 26 October 2000. She adhered to those pleas of guilty before his Honour Judge Luland QC in the District Court at Sydney on 12 January 2001. The matter was adjourned and the sentences were ultimately imposed on 6 April 2001. 2 Each offence carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 20 years. In respect of four counts, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years to date from 31 August 2000, the date on which she had been arrested and from which she had been in custody with a non-parole period of 2 years, these sentences being concurrent with each other. In respect of the remaining three counts, she was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years to date from 31 August 2002 with a non-parole period of 1 year. These sentences were also concurrent with each other. 3 The overall effect of the sentences was that the applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years, both dating from the date of her arrest, 31 August 2000. His Honour noted that he had reduced the head sentence from 8 years to 6 years on account of her early pleas of guilty. This represented a reduction of 25 percent and is within the guideline judgment of R v Henry & Ors [1999] 46 NSWLR 346. 4 As his Honour noted, the offences were all committed between 4 August 2000 and 19 August 2000. Each was committed in almost identical circumstances. The victims were persons in charge of small businesses, and when alone, the prisoner threatened them with a blood-filled syringe and demanded their money. All the victims were female; the youngest was aged 17 and the eldest 56. In each case, the applicant obtained relatively small amounts of cash, the greatest being $800. When threatening the victims, she usually told them she did not want to hurt them. None were physically injured, but all no doubt have suffered psychological trauma, particularly as she told some or all of them that the blood in the syringe was AIDS-infected, and persons naturally have a great fear of the AIDS virus. 5 The applicant herself was addicted to heroin at this time and was in an abusive relationship with a man who was also drug-addicted and the offences were committed at his urging to satisfy the need for drugs of both of them. 6 The applicant has a criminal record dating back to 1998, including a number of convictions for steal, false pretences, obtain benefit by deception, passing valueless cheques, receiving forged prescriptions and self-administer prohibited drugs. More recent convictions were in 1999 and 2000 when on each occasion she was fined for larceny. In 1990 she served a prison sentence of 4 months. 7 A Pre-Sentence Report, a psychologist's report and some other reports were all before the learned sentencing Judge and were taken into account by his Honour. I have also read and considered them. 8 On behalf of the applicant, considerable reliance is placed on her background leading up to the commission of the offences. She was born on 28 December 1960, being 29 years at the time of the commission of the offences. It appears that she has never been married although she has two children, a daughter now aged about 19 and a son now aged about 15 from different relationships. There have been a number of court proceedings between her and the grandparents of the daughter concerning custody of both of them, and part of the reason for this has been the applicant's criminal history and particularly the fact that she has been in prison; and it appears that she lost custody in 1990 when she was imprisoned for 4 months. Since her release she has had a number of brief relationships, none of which have been successful. 9 She was sentenced to imprisonment at Kogarah and Sutherland Local Courts for stealing and other offences of dishonesty for 6 months in November 1993 but appeals from these sentences were upheld by the District Court on 8 March 1994 when she was released on a recognizance to be of good behaviour for 3 years and to accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and to undertake the methadone programme and psychiatric counselling. It appears that shortly after this she became involved with a man, James Koning, and maintained a relationship with him until shortly before her arrest in respect of these matters. 10 He was apparently a chronic alcoholic and a manic-depressive. He was given to extreme mood swings and unpredictable behaviour and their 6-year relationship was violent from the start. This relationship is described in some detail in the report of Miss Devine. He persuaded her to discontinue the methadone programme she was on, with the result that she returned to the use of heroin. He then forced her by means of physical violence to work as a prostitute to obtain money to support the heroin habit that they both had until her health deteriorated. When this happened, according to the applicant, she was forced, again with physical violence, to commit the offences of armed robbery in order to obtain money to support their joint drug habit. 11 Shortly after the commission of the last offence which was on 19 August 2000, she at last left Mr Koning, terminating the relationship, and went to live with her mother at Hurstville. On 21 August she attended the Bayside Clinic at Kogarah and recommenced a methadone programme which was continuing at the time of her arrest on 31 August. When arrested she told the police that she was intending to give herself up, and this was confirmed by her mother. Following her arrest she made full admissions, including disclosing two offences which the police were not then aware of, and then pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. She has been in custody since 31 August 2000. 12 In sentencing the appellant his Honour noted and had regard to all of the matters to which I have referred. He specifically found that the offences were committed at her de facto's urging, she was remorseful, she had genuine concerns for her victims, and she had had a very difficult life. His Honour acknowledged her drug problems and her attempt to overcome them whilst in prison by continuing counselling and the Pre-Sentence Report indicated that she had sought assistance from the Salvation Army in relation to her drug problem and sought rehabilitation from the REACH Programme. 13 I am satisfied from reading his Honour's reasons that his Honour did take all these matters into account and in particular, that the sentence was significantly reduced because of the pressure she was under from her de facto to commit these offences, her pleas of guilty, her subsequent co-operation with the police, that she had terminated the relationship and had started to get assistance with her drug problem. However, it was submitted that his Honour did not give sufficient weight to a number of matters which are set out in the Written Submissions. I am satisfied that his Honour did take most of these matters into account. 14 The fact that the syringe was not filled with AIDS-infected blood is of only limited significance because it is somewhat akin to the unloaded shotgun, the person threatened with it is not aware that the blood in the syringe is not AIDS-infected, especially when told that it is. This Court has said on a number of occasions that the use of a syringe apparently filled with blood is a particularly serious factor because of the terror and revulsion it causes to the victims: R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28 at [17] and cases there cited. 15 It was also submitted that his Honour failed to pay sufficient regard to the fact that this applicant was said to be "at the crossroads". This normally suggests that by extending leniency at this stage, the rehabilitation of the offender will be promoted. In the present case it appears that this applicant was probably treated as being "at the crossroads" in March 1994 when appeals to the District Court were allowed following two sets of convictions for which imprisonment had been imposed and she was released with a recognizance to be of good behaviour for 3 years, a recognizance which she did not keep; as is apparent not only from her return to drug use, but the fact that she had further convictions for stealing in March of 1995. 16 His Honour took into account the termination of her relationship with her former de facto, her pre-arrest re-engagement with the methadone programme and her continued progress in this regard whilst in custody and her prospects for rehabilitation upon release. In my opinion, no further leniency was called for. 17 Accordingly I would grant leave to appeal but would dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentences. 18 CARRUTHERS AJ: I agree. 19 DUNFORD J: The order will be as I have indicated.

R v Renton

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (2)