Legal Research
Cases
R v Alberts

R v Alberts

Case [2021] ACTSC 341 12 May 2021

Disadvantaged Background

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Alberts
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 341
Hearing Date:	7 May 2021
DecisionDate:	12 May 2021
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Akeem Patrick Alberts be convicted of aggravated robbery and be sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 24 October 2020 and end on 23 April 2023. 2. Akeem Patrick Alberts be convicted of common assault and be sentenced to three months imprisonment, to commence on 24 March 2023 and end on 23 June 2023. 3. A non-parole period of 18 months, to commence on 24 October 2020 and end on 23 April 2022, be set.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated Robbery – Common Assault – Reparation Order for Victims – Rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 19, 33, 35, 46J, 52, 46J Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) pt 8
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 D’Aniello v Police [2009] SASC 172 Doherty (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 493 Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 Lieu v State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 218 MLP v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 271; 164 A Crim R 93 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734 R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v Crowther [2019] ACTSC 338 R v Elphick [2021] ATSC 9 R v Griggs [1999] ACTSC 22 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Landolt (1992) 63 A Crim R 220 R v McFarlane (1993) 2 Tas R 201 R v Nyuon [2020] ACTSC 171 R v O'Connor [2019] ACTSC 132 R v Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174 R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18 R v Watt [2021] ACTSC 20 R v West [2015] ACTSC 134 Ross v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 161 Valentini v The Queen (1989) A Crim R 23
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Akeem Patrick Alberts ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren ( Crown) B Morrisroe ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) S Allen (7 May 2021) and P Koci (12 May 2021); McKenna Taylor ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 51 of 2021 SCC 52 of 2021

REFSHAUGE AJ

The criminal law sets standards of behaviour that are intended to maintain the peace and stability of a civilised society. Breaches of that behaviour must, therefore, be subject to a response that reinforces those standards. This is the task of imposing sentences on those who offend against the criminal law.

In discharging this task, which has…

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 Alberts

Details

AGLC: R v Alberts [2021] ACTSC 341
Case: [2021] ACTSC 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alberts, the offender Akeem Patrick Alberts was convicted of aggravated robbery and common assault. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentences for these offences, taking into account various factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offences, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the harm caused to the victims.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation. It also considered the offender's disadvantaged childhood, which was accepted as a mitigating factor. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary and set a non-parole period.

The final orders made by the court were as follows:

1. Akeem Patrick Alberts is convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 24 October 2020 and end on 23 April 2023. Had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment.

2. Akeem Patrick Alberts is convicted of common assault and sentenced to three months imprisonment, to commence on 24 March 2023 and end on 23 June 2023. This sentence is to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for aggravated robbery. Had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been sentenced to four months imprisonment.

3. A non-parole period of 18 months is set, to commence on 24 October 2020 and end on 23 April 2022.

Orders