R v TL (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 289

In the 2016 case of R v TL (No 2) ACTSC 289 the defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated robbery. The defendant wanted to apologise face-to-face to the victim of the aggravated robbery. (para. 78). Therefore, Refshague ACJ considered it appropriate to refer the offender to restorative justice (para. 157). 

R v Redpath (Gaven David) [2015] EWCA Crim 1766

In the 2015 case of R v Redpath (Gaven David) EWCA Crim 1766 the appellant pleaded guilty to robbery with an offensive weapon.  The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) noted that the appellant cooperated with the Restorative Justice Programme that had positive outcomes for the victim. This, in combination with an early plea of guilty, was considered to be indicative of remorse (para. 7). The court found that the sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ (para. 8).

R v Benedict, 2014 ONSC 6898

In the 2014 case of R v Benedict ONSC 6898 the defendant, while serving a conditional sentence, committed an aggravated robbery. The Ontario Court of Justice held that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation had satisfactorily been met by a period of 16 months’ jail that occurred between the date of the offence, when the conditional sentence expired, and the trial (para. 15). The court therefore found that a suspended sentence and a three-year probation order, with conditions, was appropriate.

R v Schell, 2015 ONSC 6013

In the 2015 case of R v Schell ONSC 6013 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided upon a ‘creative’ sentence of three months to be served intermittently, in line with the principles in Gladue and Ipeelee (para. 40). The defendant, who had committed a robbery and assault, was eager to get back to work, and was likely to find work relatively quickly in his relevant field. The court also considered that employment was very important for the progress and self-esteem of the offender (para. 41).

R v Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452

The appellant was convicted of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon in an aboriginal community.

In the 2010 case of R v Jacko ONCA 452 the Court of Appeal for Ontario reflected on the importance of both considering restorative justice in sentencing, and ensuring that restorative justice has tangible outcomes in sentencing.

Watt J.A highlights at (para. 86) that restorative justice sentencing objectives may include

R v Forrest [2016] ACTSC 321 (28 November 2016)

Accused arraigned on an indictment containing 37 counts, including, theft, property damage, burglary, aggravated burglary, dishonestly receiving stolen property, and, dishonestly taking and using a motor vehicle.

In considering whether any of the offences should be referred to restorative justice, Refshauge ACJ outlined the growing evidence in support of restorative justice and its value for victims, offenders and the justice system (para. 5­­–8).

Police v Paki [2014] NZHC 3112 (5 December 2014)

In the 2014 case of Police v Paki NZHC 3112 the appellant was discharged without conviction on two charges of burglary and one of theft. He was also convicted and discharged on a drink driving offence. This lenient sentence resulted from an extremely positive restorative justice report where the High Court of New Zealand held that the appellant had done everything possible to ‘put things right’ (para. 2). This included an apology to the victims, presentation of a piece of art, completion of activities with local community groups, and genuine remorse (para. 30).

Singh v Police HC Gisborne [2011] NZHC 25 (4 February 2011)

The 2011 case of Singh v Police NZHC 25 involved an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for three years and three months for aggravated robbery. The High Court of New Zealand held that the appellant’s remorse was demonstrated practically and materially through a restorative justice meeting with his family. This remorse was also established by an advance the defendant had taken from his family to repay the money taken during the aggravated robbery.

R v N [2014] NZHC 2236 (16 September 2014)

In the 2014 case of R v N NZHC 2236 the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The sentencing judge held that the defendant’s genuine remorse accompanied by a willingness to participate in restorative justice and an apology letter written to the victims were included as mitigating factors (para. 32). These factors played a role in a final discount of five years giving the defendant an end sentence of three years imprisonment (para. 33).

R v Tuku-Inamata [2014] NZHC 2654 (29 October 2014)

In the 2014 case of R v Tuku-Inamata NZHC 2654 the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The sentencing judge commented that the defendant’s participation in restorative justice and successful restorative justice report was encouraging (para. 31). This successful participation in restorative justice was one of the factors that led to a discount of two and a half years giving the defendant an end sentence of five and a half years imprisonment (para. 33).