DPP v Stewart

Case [2023] ACTSC 252

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Stewart

Citation: 

[2023] ACTSC 252

Hearing Dates: 

17 July 2023, 31 August 2023

Decision Date: 

11 September 2023

Before:

McWilliam J

Decision: 

See [132]-[133]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence –damage property – unregistered firearm – prohibited weapon – forgery – guilty pleas – where strength of prosecution case was overwhelming but assisted by admissions – whether Bugmy principles apply – where significant period spent in custody before sentence – risk of deportation due to visa cancellation – where prospects of reform dependent on drug and alcohol rehabilitation – whether Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order should be made 

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12A, 33, 35, 36, 57, 63, 64, 80O, 80W, 80Y, 80Z, 80ZA

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 346, 347, 403, 703, 713

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 177(2)(a)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501

Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5

Cases Cited: 

Allouch v The Queen [2018] VSCA 244

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58

Cooke (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 44; 18 ACTLR 204

Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3

DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 189

DPP v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166

DPP v Stasinos [2023] ACTSC 179

Islam v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 2

Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35

Lloyd v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 18

Mahanay v Phelan [2023] ACTSC 162

Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

McLeod v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 59

Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120

Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305

Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18

O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610

R v Atai (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 272

R v Brown [2015] ACTSC 65

R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

R v Bulliman (Unreported, NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Hunt CJ at CL and Abadee J, 25 Feb 1993)

R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20

R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32

R v Cichacz [2022] ACTSC 28

R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245

R v Deng [2022] ACTSC 143

R v Featherstone [2019] ACTSC 218

R v Garay (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 138

R v GBD [2018] QCA 340; 342 FLR 244

R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256

R v Leka [2017] SASCFC 77

R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25

R v McCallum [2020] ACTSC 15

R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25

R v Mitchell [2016] ACTSC 85

R v Moore [2012] NSWCCA 3

R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122

R v Parker [2020] ACTSC 38

R v Pearce [2018] ACTSC…

Continue reading DPP v Stewart

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DPP v Stewart [2023] ACTSC 252
Case
[2023] ACTSC 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Stewart came before the court where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) brought charges against the defendant, Stewart, for multiple criminal offences. The charges included damaging property, possessing an unregistered firearm, possessing a prohibited weapon, and forgery. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court revolved around the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, the effect of Bugmy principles in relation to the defendant's admissions, and the impact of the defendant's pre-sentence custody and visa status on the sentencing decision. The court needed to balance the severity of the crimes committed with the mitigating circumstances, including the defendant's significant period in custody prior to sentencing and his risk of deportation due to visa cancellation.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the overwhelming strength of the prosecution's case, which was bolstered by the defendant's admissions. It evaluated the applicability of Bugmy principles, which require courts to consider the potential impact of the sentence on Indigenous defendants. Additionally, the court examined the defendant's prospects for reform, particularly in the context of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court decided to impose a sentence that included a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, reflecting the defendant's need for rehabilitation and the need to address his drug and alcohol issues.

The final orders of the court were to impose a sentence that included a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, reflecting the court's considerations of the defendant's circumstances and the principles of sentencing. The specific details of the sentence are outlined in the court's judgment from paragraphs [132] to [133].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [132]-[133]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.