Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym)

DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym)

Case [2023] ACTSC 189 19 July 2023

Breach of Good Behaviour Order

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 189
Hearing Date:	17 July 2023
Decision Date:	19 July 2023
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [87].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – young offender – culpable driving causing death – aggravated robbery – attempted theft – culpable driving offence in the high-range of objective seriousness – aggravated robbery and attempted theft offences in the mid-range of objective seriousness CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – prosecution case overwhelmingly strong for purposes of s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) because of admissions made by offender – no substantial reduction of sentence available under s 35 – whether reductions available under s 36 because of admissions – reduction available under s 36 – combined discount under ss 35 and 36 of 25 percent
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 29(2), 382(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 8A, 35(4), 36, 53, 133C, 133G(4), pt 4.4 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 108(2)(a) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 310, 403 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2000 (ACT), s 20(3) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 62 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 16
Cases Cited:	R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Haven (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 61 R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20 R v Snowden [2022] ACTSC 186
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions “Micha Calhoun” ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson SC ( DPP) E Chen ( Offender)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 1 of 2023 SCC 2 of 2023

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․The offender has pleaded guilty to a total of seven offences. He is identified by a pseudonym, Micha Calhoun, as he was under the age of 18 at the time of the offending. The offences involve two separate occasions and will be identified as the series one and series two offences.
2․The first series of offences occurred on 30 January 2022. They were:
(a)Aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CH 2022/101). The maximum penalty of imprisonment is 25 years;
(b)Attempted theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CH 2022/1058). The maximum penalty of imprisonment is 10 years; and
(c)Possess knife in public place without reasonable excuse, contrary to s 382(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CH 2022/1059). The maximum penalty of imprisonment is six months.

3․The parties requested that the Court take into account the following additional offence in sentencing the offender for the offence of aggravated robbery, namely, property damage, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (SCCAN 2022/81). The maximum penalty of imprisonment would be 10 years.
4․The second series of offences occurred on 9 October 2022. They were:
(a)Two counts of culpable driving causing death, contrary…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 189
Case: [2023] ACTSC 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuted Micha Calhoun, a pseudonymous minor, for a series of serious criminal offences. These included culpable driving causing death, aggravated robbery, attempted theft, and possession of a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for these offences while considering the principles of sentencing, particularly those relating to juvenile offenders. The key legal issues were the objective seriousness of the offences, the offender's subjective circumstances, and the appropriate discount for the offender's guilty pleas. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, taking into account the high moral culpability and the vulnerability of the victims. It also considered the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his age, background, and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to decide whether to apply the statutory discounts for the offender's guilty pleas, given the strength of the prosecution case and the offender's admissions.

The court concluded that the offences were of high objective seriousness, particularly the culpable driving causing death, which involved excessive speed, intoxication, and disregard for the safety of others. The court found that the offender's guilty pleas warranted a reduction in sentence, despite the strength of the prosecution case. It held that the offender was entitled to a combined discount under sections 35 and 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), amounting to 25 percent. The court imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to promote the rehabilitation of the offender. It suspended the sentences after 24 months of imprisonment, subject to good behaviour obligations and probation supervision. The court also imposed a fine for the offence of being an unaccompanied learner driver and took no further action on the breach of the good behaviour orders. It dismissed the application for a reparation order, considering the offender's limited means.

Orders