JURD7122/LAWS1022 – Criminal Laws
Mid-term Assignment: Sentencing Task
Term 2, 2025
(Read carefully – no dispensation will be given for lack of awareness of the rules)
Weighting
30% of total marks for Criminal Laws.
Due date
5.00 pm AEST Monday 14 July 2025
You are required to submit an electronic copy of your assignment via
Turnitin. Turnitin is software that assists in the assessment of academic
integrity. Among other things, Turnitin identifies:
Submission platform
•
•
plagiarism (see below)
academic misconduct, including hidden text (hyphens, e.g.) and
images of text.
You are allowed ONE submission only. It is your responsibility to upload
the correct document.
The assignment must:
Assignment format









be submitted as a .doc, .docx (do not submit PDF or Apple Pages)
contain text only, no images of text are permitted
contain headings and subheadings
use a footnote referencing system (no intext referencing)
have 3cm margins
use a legible font (e.g., Calibri, Arial or Times New Roman)
be presented in 11 point font size with 1.5 line spacing
be paginated
record the actual number of words contained in the body of the
paper, excluding footnotes (see the discussion about the word limit
below).
Late submissions
Penalties will apply for any work submitted after the due date unless you
have obtained a formal extension prior to the date for submission (see
request for special consideration below). The penalty applied will be 5% of
the available marks for the assignment for each day or part thereof that
the assignment is late. The penalty will be capped at five days (120 hours)
from the assignment deadline, after which late work will not be accepted.
Submission confirmation
We strongly advise you to double check that you have submitted the
correct document / final version of your answer. You can do this by
checking the submission extract in the digital receipt pop-up you receive
upon submission to Turnitin. You can also check your submission in
Turnitin upon submission.
Submission of incorrect document
If you have submitted the incorrect document, you should email the correct
document to the convenor prior to the deadline. Submitting the incorrect
document can result in failure.
1,200 words no 10% leeway (excluding footnotes). Make sure the “Include
footnotes in word count” box is UNCHECKED in Microsoft Word.
Word limit
Footnotes should not contain discursive text. All your argument must be in
the body of the paper. Any discursive text within footnotes will be counted
towards the word limit.
Penalties will apply to assignments which exceed the word limit as
follows:
Exceeds by up to 10% — 10% penalty;
Exceeds by 10%+ up to 20% — 15% penalty;
Word limit penalty
Exceeds by 20%+ up to 30% — 25% penalty;
Exceeds by more than 30% — 30% penalty.
The penalty applies to the total marks available for the assignment.
Turnitin calculates the number of words used. All words in your answer will
be included in the wordcount.
Legal citation
All sources referred to in the assignment must be formally cited using a
footnote referencing system (i.e., no in-text referencing) in accordance with
the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th ed).
No bibliography
A bibliography is not required.
Special Consideration
Requests for an extension due to illness, misadventure, or other
extenuating circumstances beyond your control will only be considered via
a formal application for special consideration: see here. Teachers cannot
give informal extensions.
It is assumed that you are thoroughly familiar with the policies of UNSW
Law & Justice regarding academic misconduct and plagiarism. Ignorance
of the rules is not an acceptable defence against an allegation of academic
misconduct. See the course Moodle page for links to the relevant policies.
Plagiarism and academic
misconduct
There are no excuses for engaging in plagiarism. Assignment answers will
be checked for plagiarism and other misconduct (such as hidden hyphens
and images of text). Impermissible similarities between student answers
(current and former) can be detected by academic integrity software and
by teachers, and will be referred to the Faculty’s Student Integrity Advisor
for investigation.
This assignment is not group work. It requires individual engagement only.
You may discuss the assignment with fellow students, but you MUST NOT:
•
write your assignment with other students
•
share your assignment with other students
•
allow other people to edit your work (including, but not limited to,
other students, family members, legal practitioners, and peer
tutors)
•
share written notes about the assignment question
2|P a g e
•
copy from syndicated or shared notes, including online sources
(such as ThinkSwap)
•
copy from feedback provided to students in previous years
•
copy from any source without appropriate acknowledgement.
For use of generative artificial intelligence, see below.
SIMPLE EDITING ASSISTANCE
Use of Generative Artificial
Intelligence (AI)
Tips
For this assessment task, you may use standard editing software but not
generative AI. You are permitted to use the full capabilities of the standard
editing software available through Microsoft Office suite. If the use of
generative AI such as ChatGPT is detected, it will be regarded as serious
academic misconduct and subject to the standard penalties, which may
include 00FL, suspension and exclusion.
 Read the questions carefully and only answer the questions asked:
identify the errors and show the marker that you know the approach,
steps and rules that a sentencing judge should follow.
 Read the marking criteria.
 Plan/structure your answer before you start.
 Use subheadings to help structure your answer.
 Write succinctly. Use essential words only.
 Do not quote extensively from sources. Paraphrase instead, and
footnote.
 Do not spend a disproportionate amount of time on any one
consideration.
 Avoid repetition.
 Avoid being overly descriptive.
 Remember to save/back up your work regularly. UNSW provides all
students with free access to OneDrive (see UNSW IT here). It may be
prudent to save your work to your OneDrive account so that you can
access it from multiple devices in case you encounter hardware
issues.
 If you administrative/procedural questions about the assignment you
can post them on the Sentencing Discussion Forum on Moodle.
Teaching staff will answer for the benefit of all students.
3|P a g e
R v Rouge (NSW District Court, Downing Centre, Thursday 5 June 2025)
Sentencing Remarks of Judge Bovary
Mr Marcel Rouge, today you stand to be sentenced, having pleaded guilty to: i) one charge of
larceny (s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)); and ii) one charge of assault occasioning actual
bodily harm (s 59(1)). The maximum penalties for these crimes are both 7 years imprisonment.
Agreed Facts
On Friday 6 September 2024 at approximately 12.15pm, you and your 24 year old brother Bjorn
Rouge entered the Woolworths supermarket in the Sydney suburb of Greenville. The two of you
walked immediately to the aisle in which shaving razors were on display. You each placed four
packets of ‘Gillette Fusion Manual Razor Blade x 12 Refills’ into the inside pockets of your
jackets, zipped up your jackets and walked towards the store entrance/exit. You were stopped
by a security guard employed by Woolworths, a 52 year-old man named Ahmed Salir. When Mr
Salir stopped you and your brother, and asked both of you to open your jackets, you refused.
Your brother, Bjorn, pushed Mr Salir hard in the chest, causing Mr Salir to fall to the ground.
You then kicked Mr Salir in the face – causing a laceration above his eye – before both of you
ran off. Both the taking of the razor blades and the assault on Mr Salir were captured on instore CCTV. You were later apprehended by police officers at a park just a few blocks away.
At the time of your arrest, you were both highly intoxicated, having consumed alcohol over a
period of 3-4 hours. You appeared before the Local Court Magistrate on the same day and
were granted bail.
The Basis for My Decision
I start by noting the objective seriousness of your offending which is another way of saying:
where do the crimes for which you are to be sentenced sit in the hierarchy of offences in the
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)? The maximum penalty is our guide, and the answer is that they are
both located at the lower-middle end of the range. I note the purposes of sentencing in s 3A of
the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (‘the Act’). They all apply. As an aside, I
have to say that I am delighted to work in a jurisdiction where judges don’t have to explain or
justify their decision in mathematical terms. The ‘instinctive synthesis’ model endorsed by the
High Court effectively means that I can trust that my instincts will lead me to the right result at
the end of the day.
For reasons I don’t understand, you were not charged with the offence of assault occasioning
bodily harm in company (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 59(2)). You should have been, and I am
certainly not going to ignore the fact that you committed these crimes with your brother,
making them more serious. It is well known that razor blade refills are amongst the most
expensive items stocked by supermarkets. I assume that you planned to sell them for cash.
You may have even done so that very day for the purpose of obtaining funds to buy alcohol.
I am strictly not required to consider a standard non-parole (SNPP) because the Act does not
set a SNPP for either larceny or assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, there is a
SNPP for the analogous offence of assaulting a police officer occasioning bodily harm (Crimes
Act 1900 (NSW) s 60(2)). Private security guards who keep staff and customers safe at
supermarkets are just as deserving of protection as police officers, so I am inclined to start
my calculations at a minimum of 3 years imprisonment. However, in line with the approach
endorsed by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131, that is just the
first step. Your personal circumstances, which I will soon consider, might allow me to justify a
shorter sentence.
4|P a g e
If I am wrong about the relevance of the s 60(2) NPP, the same result is achieved by
recognising that the s 21A(2)(a) aggravating factor in the Act applies to private security
guards. I have also taken into account the use of violence (s 21A(2)(b)) and the ‘in company’
nature of your offending (s 21A(2)(e)). I do not regard your offending as ‘planned’ in the sense
addressed by s 21A(2)(n). I note also that Mr Salir declined the invitation to make a Victim
Impact Statement. Nonetheless, I regard your failure to show remorse, such as in the form of
an apology letter, to be an aggravating factor.
No doubt because of the seriousness of the offences, particularly the assault against Mr Salir,
the Director of Public Prosecutions elected to prosecute you on indictment under the Table 2
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The fact that you have pleaded guilty to
both charges is a mitigating factor under s 21A(3)(k) and Div 1A of the Act. Because you
entered a plea of guilty at the first opportunity and your plea was accepted by Magistrate Binks
at the committal stage you are entitled to the full 25% reduction which will be applied today. I
have also taken into account that at the time of the offences you were heavily intoxicated, and
you mentioned in the Sentencing Assessment Report that this affected your decision-making
at the time.
Mr Rouge, I now consider the information that has been provided to me about your personal
circumstances, starting with your criminal record. My first thought was: how is it that a 22 year
old young man has so often found himself on the wrong side of the law? Your record contains
11 convictions for larceny – all in the form of minor shoplifting – and four convictions for drug
possession. This is the first time you have been convicted of a crime of violence and, on that
basis, I have given you the benefit of the mitigating factor of having no significant record of
previous conviction (s 21A(3)(e)).
You have never been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. I do wonder whether some time
on the inside might be the dose of specific deterrence that you need. However, your family
history of exposure to violence from a young age, and your own struggles with substance use,
suggest that this might do more harm than good. Between the ages of 5 and 12 your family
moved regularly to different parts of NSW, often associated with your parents’ attempts to find
and maintain employment. School attendance was adversely affected. Both of your parents
drank heavily and violence was a common occurrence. For the last 10 years you have lived
with your mother and brother in Greenville. However, when you were 13 you started regularly
consuming alcohol and illicit substances (specifically, cannabis and methylamphetamine).
Since leaving school at 16, you have experienced long periods of unemployment.
Your lawyer has made submissions that these are relevant factors that should be taken into
account as reducing the objective seriousness of your offending and as significant mitigating
factors, I find myself in a quandary. On the one hand, I understand that you have never before
relied on your history of disadvantage as a mitigating factor, which means that you have not
wasted your one chance to do so. On the other hand, the rules on disadvantaged backgrounds
have been designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons appearing to be
sentenced. I understand that you do not identify as an Aboriginal person, and that your parents’
heritage is Irish and French. In these circumstances, I cannot attach much weight to your
undeniably troubled background.
I sentence you Mr Rouge as follows:
•
On charge 1 (larceny): 2 years imprisonment
•
On charge 2 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm): 2 years imprisonment.
These sentences are to be served concurrently. I set a non-parole period of 7 months. Your
youth, and your substance use challenges, constitute special circumstances for the purpose
of s 44(2) of the Act.
Finally, Mr Rouge, I am aware that your brother – the co-offender in these crimes – was
sentenced yesterday by Judge Giddy, after having also pleaded guilty to both charges at the
first opportunity. I understand that Bjorn was sentenced to a 2 year intensive correction order
5|P a g e
(ICO). I understand, and this comes as no surprise, that he experienced very similar family
dislocation, trauma and disadvantage to you. Sadly, I see that he has also had his struggles
with substance use. He too has a history of minor offending, though his convictions are fewer
in number than yours. I trust that you will both soon be back on the path to rehabilitation.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
You are a solicitor at Legal Aid NSW. You have been asked to prepare a report and a
recommendation to your managing solicitor on whether Mr Rouge should appeal against the
sentence imposed. Your report should identify any errors (including omissions) made by Judge
Bovary in her Honour’s remarks on sentencing. In the case of each error identified, you should
explain the correct approach that the sentencing judge should have adopted in line with the
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and relevant case law.
In your discussion, you should draw attention to those facts that are relevant to the sentencing
decision and explain how they are relevant. You must express a conclusion on whether a
severity appeal against sentence is warranted.
You are not required to nominate the sentence that you think should have been imposed.
You are not required to conduct additional research beyond the Sentencing Modules (and
associated prescribed reading).
Wherever possible you should directly reference the underlying primary and secondary source
material which you have accessed via the modules (i.e., a section from the Crimes (Sentencing
Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) or a case). As a last resort, you can footnote the module number
(and slide/screen number), but this should rarely be necessary. References to case law or
secondary sources beyond that contained in the modules and associated readings will not be
rewarded in marking.
6|P a g e
Marking Criteria
Identification of errors in sentencing remarks
-
Precision in identifying the errors (including omissions) made by the sentencing
judge
-
Clear and logical explanation
Accurate and comprehensive account of correct sentencing principles and rules
-
Principles and rules identified concisely
-
Relevant authority cited (statute, case law)
Application of legal rules to material facts
-
Identify facts relevant to sentencing the defendant
-
Succinct application of principle/rule to relevant facts
-
Clear guidance on the applicability (or not) of specific rules
Clear and persuasive written communication
-
Clear, concise and easy to read (‘plain English’) writing
-
Evidence or reasoning when outcomes not obvious
-
Resolution/conclusion offered (for specific issues as well as overall)
Effective structure
-
Logical sequence of topics
-
Effective use of headings and paragraphs (headings used to clearly identify discrete
issues)
Citation and references
-
All sources acknowledged
-
Correct and consistent citation in accordance with the AGLC4
The above criteria are not weighed equally.
7|P a g e