R v AC - [2015] ACTSC 240

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v AC
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 240
Hearing Date:	26 March 2015
DecisionDate:	31 March 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [46] and [47] below.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – offender to be sentenced for two aggravated robberies committed as a juvenile – offender volunteered confessions while serving other sentences in order to have a “clean slate” when released from current custody – requirements for sentencing young offenders – non-parole periods not to be set for young offenders – sentence constructed so as to increase offender’s total period in custody but avoid offender being released subject to juvenile good behaviour order supervision and adult parole supervision.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 64, 133A, 133B, 133C, 133D, 133G, 133G(3), Chapter 8A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) AC (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 30 of 2015

Introduction

AC has pleaded guilty to two offences of aggravated robbery under s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), an offence which carries a maximum penalty including 25 years imprisonment.

The offences

The offences were committed on 5 September 2011 and 23 October 2011. I shall refer to them as the new offences even though they are, in fact, older than the offences for which AC is currently in custody.

The agreed Statement of Facts describes the events in general terms as follows.

The September 2011 robbery

At about 10.30 pm on 5 September 2011, Joseph Ray, the victim of the September robbery, was talking on his mobile telephone on Hennessey Street, Belconnen. He was sitting in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, a Toyota Corolla with Queensland registration plates, and he had the door open.

At this time, AC approached him wearing a dark hooded jumper with the hood pulled up, a black baseball cap, navy track pants and a black bandana concealing his face.

After a brief exchange, AC asked the victim if he had any change and the victim replied that he did not have his wallet with him. AC then lifted the front of his hooded jumper and produced a small axe commonly referred to as a tomahawk from the front of his pants and pointed it at the victim. The victim described the axe as looking brand new with a wooden handle and a black blade. AC said “Now do you have any money on you?” The victim responded “I told you I don’t have my wallet on me”. AC told the victim to turn out his pockets which he did, placing two $20 notes and 70 cents in coins on the ground along with his mobile phone and the keys to his car. AC said, “I don’t want your car” and then collected the money and mobile phone.

He directed the victim to move…

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 R v AC

Details

AGLC: R v AC [2015] ACTSC 240
Case: [2015] ACTSC 240
Decision Date: 31 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v AC involved the sentencing of the defendant, AC, for two aggravated robberies that were committed while AC was a juvenile. The matter was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of the particular circumstances of the case. AC had volunteered confessions while serving other sentences, motivated by a desire to have a "clean slate" upon release from current custody. This led to the need for a careful consideration of sentencing principles, particularly those concerning young offenders.

The court was required to address several legal issues, primarily focused on the appropriate sentencing framework for a juvenile offender who had confessed to serious crimes. Key considerations included the requirements for sentencing young offenders, the prohibition on setting non-parole periods for such offenders, and the need to construct a sentence that would increase the total period in custody while avoiding the imposition of both juvenile good behaviour order supervision and adult parole supervision upon release. The court had to balance these factors with the overarching aim of ensuring justice and rehabilitation.

In determining the sentence, the court meticulously evaluated the specific circumstances of AC’s offences and his background. It found that the principles guiding the sentencing of young offenders necessitated a sentence that would ensure AC's continued detention without imposing additional post-release supervision. The court concluded that the sentence should be designed to increase the total period in custody but avoid the imposition of a juvenile good behaviour order and adult parole supervision. This approach was seen as the most appropriate way to address the crimes while adhering to the statutory requirements and objectives of sentencing young offenders.

The final orders, detailed in paragraphs [46] and [47], reflect the court's determination that AC should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment for each offence, with those terms to run concurrently. The non-parole periods were not set, in accordance with the statutory provisions for young offenders. The precise details of the sentences were structured to ensure that AC's total period in custody was increased, while avoiding the imposition of additional post-release supervision, thereby aligning with the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [46] and [47] below.

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.