Legal Context

The case of R v Wakefield [2010] NSWDC 118 involved John Leslie Wakefield, who appeared for sentencing on two counts of armed robbery committed in July 2009. These offences were particularly notable as they were committed less than a year after Wakefield was released on parole for a similar offence. The judge, Berman SC DCJ, imposed an overall sentence consisting of a non-parole period of five years and three months and a head sentence of seven years.

Suspension and Appeal for Stay

Wakefield’s history of incarceration is extensive, having spent thirty-seven of his last forty-two years in prison. His criminal activities began at the tender age of eleven, marking the start of a long and troubled relationship with the criminal justice system. Over the decades, Wakefield has accumulated an extensive criminal record, which includes numerous offences. A significant portion of his criminal history involves various forms of robbery, including armed robbery, which has become a recurring theme in his life of crime.

His repeated involvement in such serious offences indicates a persistent pattern of unlawful behaviour and an inability to reintegrate into society successfully. For the purpose of this sentencing, the court’s focus was on his most recent armed robbery offences, which were committed shortly after his release on parole for a similar crime. These latest incidents underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing Wakefield’s criminal behaviour and highlight the necessity of the court’s intervention to ensure public safety and administer justice.

Assessment of Crime

The first offence occurred on 2 July 2009, when Wakefield entered an Australia Post Office in Panania. He approached the counter with a black rubber pipe, which he held in a manner that made it look like a gun. He demanded money from the employee, who, believing her life was at risk, handed over more than $1,000. The terror inflicted on the victim, who genuinely feared for her life, highlights the severity of the offence.

Less than a month later, on 25 July 2009, Wakefield committed a similar offence at a video store, using the same rubber pipe to demand money. This time, he obtained $300. Both incidents were captured on closed-circuit television, and a subsequent search of Wakefield’s premises provided incriminating evidence. Wakefield made full admissions to the police.

Considerations on Public Safety and Trust

These robbery offences were extremely serious due to the fear and distress caused to the victims. The fact that Wakefield committed a similar offence so soon after the first, and shortly after his release on parole for a previous armed robbery, raises significant concerns about public safety and his potential for rehabilitation.

Wakefield’s upbringing was troubled, with a childhood exposed to criminal activities led by his relatives. This environment contributed to his life of crime. However, in recent years, he received support from Mr and Mrs Clark, who provided him with a stable environment after his release on parole. Despite their support and his initial success in finding a job, Wakefield’s lack of living skills and financial difficulties led him to commit the two robbery offences.

Appellate Decision

Judge Berman SC DCJ noted that while Wakefield’s past offences were more severe, the recent armed robbery offences still carried significant weight. Wakefield’s expressed remorse was considered genuine, as he had written to the victims and spoken about his regrets to his psychologist and the probation and parole officer. However, his remorse needed to be balanced against his continued criminal behaviour and the impact on the victims.

The judge acknowledged the efforts of Mr and Mrs Clark and the challenges Wakefield faced due to his extensive time in prison. Despite these considerations, the judge emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing for armed robbery. The guideline judgment in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 was referenced, highlighting the necessity of significant sentences for such offences to deter similar criminal activities.

Conclusion

Wakefield was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for the first offence, with a fixed term commencing on 18 February 2010. For the second offence, he received a non-parole period of three years and three months, with a head sentence of five years, commencing on 18 February 2012. The total sentence amounted to a non-parole period of five years and three months, with a head sentence of seven years. Wakefield will be eligible for parole on 17 May 2015.

Seeking Legal and Professional Guidance

If you or someone you know is facing charges of armed robbery or robbery, it is crucial to seek expert legal guidance. At Daniel Wakim Law Firm, we specialise in criminal defence and can provide the necessary support and representation in such complex cases. Our experienced team understands the intricacies of the law and can help navigate the legal system to achieve the best possible outcome. Contact us today for a consultation to discuss your case and explore your legal options.