R v Baker - [2020] ACTSC 186

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Baker
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 186
Hearing Date:	8 July 2020
DecisionDate:	8 July 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of six years and six months’ imprisonment.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated robbery – Act endangering life – Possession and use of unauthorised firearm – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Repeat offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 27(3)(c), 27(4) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) pt 7.5A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42 Sentencing (Parole Time Credit) Legislation Amendment Act 2019 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 Miles v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 54 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Johnstone (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 39 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34 R v Stott [2017] ACTSC 248 Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Reginald Baker (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 291 of 2019

MURRELL CJ

On 20 May 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to five offences committed on 17 January 2019:

(a)Count 1: Possessing an unauthorised firearm, contrary to s 42 of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Firearms Act).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Count 2: Aggravated robbery by joint commission (in company with Mr Stacker, both in possession of an offensive weapon), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) and s 45A of the Criminal Code.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 2,500 penalty units, 25 years’ imprisonment or both.
(c)Count 3: Using an unauthorised firearm, contrary to s 42 of the Firearms Act.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(d)Count 4: Using an offensive weapon in circumstances likely to endanger life and intending to prevent lawful apprehension, contrary to s 27(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.
(e)Count 5: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act.
The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment.

About a month prior to the scheduled commencement of the trial and two weeks prior to the scheduled criminal case conference, the offender indicated that he was prepared to enter pleas of guilty substantially in accordance with those that were ultimately entered. The details of the pleas were resolved at the criminal case conference.

The Crown case was strong, but the trial would have been very traumatic for all concerned. There was a significant utilitarian value…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2020] ACTSC 186
Case: [2020] ACTSC 186
Decision Date: 8 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Baker, was before the Supreme Court of Victoria on appeal against sentence following a conviction for aggravated robbery. The crime involved the accused using an unauthorised firearm during the commission of the robbery, which endangered life and resulted in actual bodily harm to one of the victims. Additionally, the accused had a prior criminal record, making him a repeat offender.

The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the accused's criminal history. The primary issues included the assessment of the aggravating factors such as the use of a firearm and the endangerment of life, alongside the necessity to balance these with the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

The court found that the use of an unauthorised firearm during the aggravated robbery significantly escalated the severity of the crime, making it a highly dangerous and violent act. Given the repeat nature of the offence and the potential for future harm, the court concluded that the sentence should serve both as a punishment and a deterrent. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a nonparole period set at six years and six months, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

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.