Good Behaviour Bond For Armed Robbery Charges in Frankston Children’s Court
- Armed Robbery s75 of the Crimes Act
- Handle stolen goods s88 of the Crimes Act
- Deal property suspected of being proceeds of crime, s195 of the Crimes Act
- Affray, s195H of the Crimes Act
Armed Robbery is one of the most serious crimes one can commit. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in gaol. However, when such a crime is committed by a child, the sentencing scheme and penalties differ significantly.
The sentencing of young offenders is governed by the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (“CYFA”). The focus of sentencing is on rehabilitation, so that children can learn from their mistakes and not re-offend in future. Children can still be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment. The maximum period that can be imposed is 3 years.
Our client was a 17-year-old male at the time of the offence. He had been out drinking with some friends when they came upon a group of younger boys. He, along with his friends, approached the other boys and demanded they hand over their phones and other valuables.
In so doing, one of our client’s friends had a knife and used it threaten the other group. Our client’s group then proceeded to physically assault the younger boys and took their valuables.
Our client was tracked as he kept one of the victim’s phones. He was arrested and interviewed, where he made full admissions to being involved in the incident and helped Police regarding the other offenders.
Our client was ultimately charged with Armed Robbery, Handle Stolen Goods, Deal Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime and Affray.
Our client engaged solicitors shortly after being charged which was helpful because it allowed our office to properly prepare the plea of guilty.
Our client attended Court approximately 5 months after the offending. At Court, our criminal solicitor was able to negotiate with the Prosecution to withdraw the lesser charges. It was conceded by Prosecution that our client had played a minor role in the incident, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offences, and that his assistance to Police provided them sufficient information to charges the co-offenders. This left only the most serious offence of Armed Robbery. The fact that our client made adverse admissions during the interview meant that he was in a position where he had to plead guilty but could also rely upon his cooperation in mitigation.
Following a case conference with the prosecution, a plea of guilty was entered on our client’s behalf. We made submissions to the Magistrate that although our role in the robbery was minor which was supported by the prosecution given our prior negotiations. We could also rely upon our clients significant cooperation.
Given our client had attended our office early and had listed to the advice we had provided about making changes and engaging in courses we were in a position to demonstrate to the Magistrate that our client had made sigifnicant changes. Her Honour was persuaded that his conduct on this occasion, although extremely serious, was not indicative of his character generally and that he would not re-offend.
Her Honour ultimately acquiesced to our submission that a Good Behaviour Bond, without conviction was the appropriate sentence. The only conditions of the Bond were that our client pay $500.00 to the Court Fund and to be a good behaviour for a period of 12 months. This was a fantastic result for our client where he was given an opportunity that most people who are charged with such a serious offence would not receive. Had he been only a few months older, our client’s case would have been in the County Court of Victoria and a term of imprisonment would have been a certainty.