R v BAKER - [2005] SASC 389

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BAKER
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Debelle, The Honourable Justice Besanko and The Honourable Justice Layton)
7 October 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence – plea of guilty to three counts criminal trespass, three counts of theft, one count breach bail – course of offending in company of older males – young offender – first offences as adult – prospects of rehabilitation – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to suspend sentence – sentence suspended.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 10(2), referred to.

R v BAKER
[2005] SASC 389
Court of Criminal Appeal: Debelle, Besanko and Layton JJ

DEBELLE J: This is an appeal by leave against sentence.
On 28 June 2005 in Port Augusta the appellant pleaded guilty to a number of offences on two informations. The charges on the first information related to two sets of offending. The first set of offending comprised one count of non‑aggravated serious criminal trespass committed between 23 and 26 September 2004 at a residence at Koolunga and one count of theft from those premises. The appellant had stolen computer equipment and computer games from those premises. A camera and lens were also stolen but were not found with the appellant. The total value of the goods stolen amounted to some $600. The second set of offending comprised one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass committed at the Koolunga Bowling Club on the night of 28 and 29 September 2004 and one count of theft from those premises. The appellant had stolen food and liquor and a fire extinguisher from those premises. The goods stolen and the damage caused amounted to about $400 ‑ $500.
The appellant was arrested in respect of that offending and was released on bail. While on bail, the appellant committed the offences the subject of the second information. That offending was constituted by one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass committed on 17 October 2004 at an electrical store at Laura and one count of theft from those premises. The appellant had stolen computer games, 21 packets of cigarettes, 300 instant money tickets and other items. The total value of the goods stolen and the damage approximated $2,300. The appellant was also charged on information with failing on 17 October 2004 to comply with a term of a bail agreement entered into on 29 September 2004 in that he had failed to comply with the condition as to curfew on the night of 17 October.
For all the above offending the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and five months. A non‑parole period of 12 months was ordered. The sentencing judge considered whether to suspend the sentence but declined to do so.
The appellant’s only ground of appeal is that the sentencing judge should have suspended the sentence. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, 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 R v BAKER

Details

AGLC: R v BAKER [2005] SASC 389
Case: [2005] SASC 389
Decision Date: 7 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baker involved the appellant, Baker, who pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal trespass, three counts of theft, and one count of breach of bail. The sentencing judge declined to suspend the sentence, leading Baker to appeal the decision. The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in not suspending the sentence, particularly considering Baker's age, the nature of the offences, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The central legal issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in not suspending Baker's sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders, the nature of the offences committed in the company of older males, and Baker's prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to assess whether the judge gave adequate weight to these factors in the sentencing process.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the principles applicable to sentencing young offenders, particularly the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for reform. The court concluded that the judge's failure to suspend the sentence was an error of law. It was determined that the judge should have taken into account Baker's age, the circumstances of the offending, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was suspended.

No additional orders were made beyond the suspension of the sentence.

Orders