Armed robbery carries up to 20 years in NSW—but a person’s age and background at the time of the offence can significantly reduce the sentence actually imposed. Here’s how the courts approach it, including the Bugmy principles.
Armed robbery is one of the most serious offences in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. But the maximum penalty and the sentence actually handed down are very different things. Courts are required to weigh not only the seriousness of the offence, but who the offender is—including, critically, their age and background at the time. A recent NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decision illustrates just how significant these factors can be, reducing a five-year sentence to four years on appeal. This article explains the offence, and how youth and disadvantage are weighed in sentencing.
Armed robbery is contained in section 97 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It applies where a person robs, or assaults with intent to rob, another person, while armed with an offensive weapon or instrument. Section 4 of the Act defines an offensive weapon broadly—it includes dangerous weapons, anything made or adapted for offensive purposes, and anything used or threatened to be used offensively, whether or not it is normally considered a weapon.
A knife used to threaten a victim during a robbery, even briefly, is enough to bring the offence within section 97. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment—substantially higher than robbery without a weapon.
It is common in robbery matters for an accused to face more than one incident. Under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), additional offences can be listed on a “Form 1” and taken into account when sentencing for a principal offence, at the accused’s request. The person is not separately convicted of the Form 1 offences, but the court can reflect that conduct in the sentence for the main charge. This is a common and often sensible strategy—it resolves related conduct without a series of separate convictions and proceedings.
Courts have long recognised that a young offender’s moral culpability is often lower than an adult’s for equivalent conduct. The principle is that the less mature the offender, the less the criminality of the act should be judged against adult standards—immaturity can affect impulse control, judgment and the capacity to foresee consequences.
This matters for two separate reasons at sentencing. First, it can reduce the offender’s moral culpability for the specific offending. Second, it moderates the weight given to deterrence—both general deterrence (discouraging others) and specific deterrence (discouraging the offender from reoffending). Courts have held that these purposes carry less force against a very young, immature offender than against an experienced adult.
Critically, a sentencing judge must actually address how an offender’s youth affects these specific factors—not simply note that the offender was young. In a recent NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decision involving a series of armed robberies committed by an offender who had turned 18 only a month earlier, the appeal court found the original sentencing judge had referred to the offender’s age but had not properly considered how it reduced his moral culpability or moderated the need for deterrence. The sentence was reduced on appeal from five years to four years, with a longer proportion spent on parole in the community.
A related but distinct line of authority stems from the High Court’s decision in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37. The High Court held that where an offender has experienced a background of profound social deprivation—such as childhood exposure to family violence, neglect, poverty, or substance abuse in the home—this background remains relevant to sentencing and does not simply fade with time or with repeated offending. The Court held this applies to any offender with such a background, regardless of ethnicity.
These are often referred to as the “Bugmy principles.” Establishing them requires more than an offender simply describing a hard upbringing—a sentencing court must be satisfied there is an actual causal connection between the deprivation and the offending, and, once satisfied, must give that background real weight in reducing the offender’s culpability. Diagnoses such as ADHD, disrupted living arrangements, or a chaotic or unsupported childhood can all form part of this picture, alongside the person’s youth.
Ordinarily, under section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the period an offender spends on parole cannot exceed one third of the total sentence. However, where a court finds “special circumstances”—which can include an offender’s youth and strong prospects of rehabilitation—it can adjust this ratio, allowing a longer period of supervised release in the community relative to time in custody. This can make a meaningful practical difference to how a sentence is actually served.
None of this excuses the seriousness of armed robbery, and courts continue to treat these offences gravely, with general deterrence remaining significant even where an offender’s youth or background is properly taken into account. But it does mean that a sentence is not simply calculated from the offence alone. A young person’s age, an offender’s diagnosed conditions, and a genuinely deprived or disrupted background are all matters that must be put before the court properly—supported by appropriate reports and evidence—if they are to carry weight.
An early guilty plea also matters. Sentencing discounts of up to 25 percent are available for pleas entered at the earliest opportunity, reflecting the utilitarian value to the justice system of avoiding a contested trial.
If you or a young family member is facing an armed robbery charge, how the case is prepared for sentencing can make a substantial difference to the outcome. Our experienced criminal lawyers can arrange appropriate psychological and background reports, ensure youth and disadvantage are properly put before the court, and advise on bail applications and appeals where appropriate. Contact NS Criminal Lawyers for a confidential discussion about your matter.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. The law referred to is current in New South Wales as at the date of publication. For advice about your circumstances, please contact a qualified criminal defence lawyer.
