Legal Research
Cases
R v Alfred

R v Alfred

Case [2022] ACTSC 216 7 July 2022

Jurisdiction

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Individualised Justice

Combined Sentences

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Alfred
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 216
Hearing Date(s):	6 July 2022
DecisionDate:	7 July 2022
Before:	Norrish AJ
Decision:	See [60]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated Burglary – Theft – Damage to Property – Young Offender – Totality of Criminality – Plea of Guilty – Promotion of Rehabilitation – Imprisonment – Individualised Justice – Combined Sentences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT), s 24 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005, s 86 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, ss 7, 10, 12, 33, 133G
Cases Cited:	Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 83 ALR 1 MT V R [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 198 CLR 610 R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298 R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64 R v Fusimalohi [2015] ACTSC 220 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v Hernandez; R v Mendoza; R v Tiznado; R v Garcia; R v Munoz [2019] NSWDC 882 R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 R V MT [2022] ACTSC 136 R v Ponfield (1999) NSWLR 327 R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 151 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Braiden Alfred (a pseudonym) (Young person)
Representation:	Counsel B Morrisroe ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Young person)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Young person)
File Number(s):	SCC 110; 113; 114 of 2021

NORRISH AJ:

The young person appearing before me today is 17 years old. He is today to be sentenced in relation to two groups of offences of very similar character.

The first group of offences was committed on 25 October 2021 when the offender entered the Westfield Belconnen Shopping Centre in company with two unknown persons and broke into a business called CeX, located on level 3 of the shopping centre. There he and the others stole a number of items to the value of $51,208, those items being a number of mobile phones, laptops, electronic tablets, video games and other electronic and digital goods in respect of which CeX was in the business of selling and exchanging. That business specialised in selling second-hand goods.

There are three charges that arise out of this offending, one offence of aggravated burglary which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment plus a substantial fine; one offence of theft, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine; and a third offence which would ordinarily be dealt with summarily, in the Children's Court, that of trespass, which I am informed carries a maximum fine of $2,200.

The second group of offences with which I am concerned were committed at the Canberra Centre, which is a shopping centre in Civic in Canberra, where the offender in company with another person, firstly,…

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 Alfred

Details

AGLC: R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216
Case: [2022] ACTSC 216
Decision Date: 7 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alfred, the respondent, Alfred, was charged with aggravated burglary, theft, and causing damage to property. Alfred pleaded guilty to the charges before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that would reflect the totality of Alfred's criminality while promoting his rehabilitation and providing individualised justice. The prosecution sought a custodial sentence due to the seriousness of the offences, while the defence advocated for a non-custodial sentence, highlighting Alfred's age and potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of individualised justice and rehabilitation. The court considered various factors, including the gravity of the offences, Alfred's age, his criminal history, his guilty plea, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court was also required to ensure that the sentence reflected the totality of Alfred's criminality while taking into account the principles of individualised justice.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of promoting rehabilitation and individualised justice, particularly given Alfred's young age and the absence of a significant criminal history. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offences but also recognised the potential for Alfred to be reformed. After carefully weighing all relevant factors, the court decided that a non-custodial sentence, coupled with specific conditions, would be more appropriate. This decision aimed to address the totality of Alfred's criminality while providing him with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reflecting the principles of individualised justice.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that combined a non-custodial term with specific conditions designed to ensure Alfred's rehabilitation and address the totality of his criminal conduct. The court also imposed additional requirements, such as community service and mandatory counselling, to further promote Alfred's rehabilitation and deter future criminal behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [60]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216

Most Recent Citation

Smith v O'Dell [2016] ACTSC 176

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cross (No 4)
[2025] ACTSC 293

…158․The prosecution drew my attention to the following cases: R v Williams-Savage [2021] ACTSC 271, R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216, R v Cook [2022] ACTSC 381 , DPP v Clissolds [2023] ACTSC 250, DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379, DPP v Woods [2023] ACTSC 380 and DPP v Malibe [2024] ACTSC 43. I have had regard to th…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Clissold
[2023] ACTSC 250

…DPP v Karazisis (2010) 31 VR 364; VSCA 350 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506; HCA 4 Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216 R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v Pocock [2015] ACTSC 77 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; NSWCCA 435 R v Reid [2021] ACTSC 72 R v Verdins [2007] VS…
Smith v O'Dell
[2016] ACTSC 176

…R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Alfred (a pseudonym)
[2024] ACTSC 341

…Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403 R v Alfred [2022] ACTSC 216:…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

R v MT
[2022] ACTSC 136 Para 1

…] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 ( MT) . That judgment I was required to consider in the sentencing of the same offender in relation to fresh charges ( R V MT [2022] ACTSC 136).…
R v Dawson
[2022] ACTSC 64 Para 1

…tion to sentencing for theft and damage offences, I am referred to two authorities: R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, particularly at [20]; and R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64, particularly at [43]. I have had regard to what has been cited by the Crown as relevant principles in respect of those matters.…
MT v The Queen
[2021] ACTCA 26 Para 1

…Chapter of the Act has been discussed in a number of authorities of the court and I particularly refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal, MT V R [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 ( MT) . That judgment I was required to consider in the sentencing of the same offender in relation to fresh charges ( R V MT [2022] ACT…
R v Hancock
[2021] ACTSC 52 Para 1

…In relation to sentencing for offences of aggravated burglary, I am referred to authorities such as R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52, particularly at [33], and R v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151, particularly at [48]. In relation to sentencing for theft and damage offences, I am referred to two authorities: R v Bowler [2015] A…
R v Po'oi
[2021] ACTSC 151 Para 1

…sentencing for offences of aggravated burglary, I am referred to authorities such as R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52, particularly at [33], and R v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151, particularly at [48]. In relation to sentencing for theft and damage offences, I am referred to two authorities: R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, partic…
Forster-Jones v The Queen
[2020] ACTCA 31 Para 1

…gravity of the offending. One authority relating to the assessment of objective seriousness offending in a general sense is Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 at [29]‑[30].…
R v Hernandez; R v Mendoza; R v Tiznado; R v Garcia; R v Munoz
[2019] NSWDC 882 Para 1

…ht back to me memory of my sentencing of a group of criminals in 2019 in the decision, R v Hernandez; R v Mendoza; R v Tiznado; R v Garcia; R v Munoz [2019] NSWDC 882 particularly at [115]-[116]. I should point out in relation to Hernandez and the other offenders that these were mature adults with histories of offe…
R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73 Para 1

…ix an appropriate sentence in accordance with Mill principles is consideration of what was said by Chief Justice Street in the judgment of R v Holder (1983) 3 NSWLR 245, where his Honour noted that in order to give effect to totality there would be a requirement for a degree of ‘telescoping’ of sentences rather than…
R v Bowler
[2015] ACTSC 298 Para 1

…v Po'oi [2021] ACTSC 151, particularly at [48]. In relation to sentencing for theft and damage offences, I am referred to two authorities: R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298, particularly at [20]; and R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64, particularly at [43]. I have had regard to what has been cited by the Crown as relevant princi…
R v Fusimalohi
[2015] ACTSC 220 Para 1

…elating to sentencing offenders in respect of dishonesty offences in the character of burglaries. Once such authority is the decision of R Fusimalohi [2015] ACTSC 220 at [10] per Murrell CJ. That cited with approval the observations of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in the guideline judgment of R v Po…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 1

…The Queen (1988) 83 ALR 1. Another relevant feature required to be considered is the dicta of the High Court in the decision of Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357.…
R v Way
[2004] NSWCCA 131 Para 1

…ibed in New South Wales by relation to the consideration of 'standard non-parole periods' (which do not apply in the ACT) per Spigelman CJ in R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 'is not a narrow band'.…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 1

…ken into account. In this particular matter I particularly note from the authority cited by the Crown, the decision of the High Court of Australia in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 198 CLR 610, particularly at [45] in the judgment of the majority. There, the majority of the High Court said that for transparency reasons it was pr…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 83 ALR 1 MT V R [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 198 CLR 610 R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298 R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64 R v Fusimalohi [2015] ACTSC 220 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v Hernan…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 12, 133G, 33, 7 6 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT)
24 2 mentions
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
86 2 mentions