On 26 July 2013 the appellant pleaded guilty to 19 counts of various dishonesty offences relating to 8 separate incidents which took place between 30 May 2012 and 27 June 2012. The 19 counts were as follows:
· Ten counts of obtaining property by deception pursuant to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $110,000.
· Six counts of receiving stolen property pursuant to s 313 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $110,000.
· Two counts of riding in a stolen motor vehicle pursuant to s 318 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty was five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $55,000.
· One count of burglary pursuant to s 311 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty was 14 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $154,000.
Background
The facts relating to each of the 19 counts are set out in the sentencing remarks of Burns J (the sentencing judge) and are not in dispute.
Count 1 occurred on 30 May 2012 when the appellant purchased some items of relatively small value (a pack of cigarettes and a Telstra recharge voucher). The purchase was made with a credit card which he did not have permission to use.
The burglary (count 2) occurred at about 5:15am on 3 June 2012 when…
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 Heard v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6
Case
[2015] ACTCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Heard appealed against his sentence for offences including burglary, obtaining property by deception, receiving stolen property, and riding in a stolen motor vehicle. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Penfold and Ross JJ.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed upon Heard was manifestly excessive, thereby warranting appellate intervention.
The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly the threshold for demonstrating that a sentence is "manifestly excessive". This involves an assessment of whether the sentencing judge erred in principle or imposed a sentence that is disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the offender. The Court weighed the objective seriousness of the offences against Heard's personal circumstances and the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community.
The Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence.