CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – make demand with threat to kill – joint commission – possess prohibited weapon – intensive corrections order imposed – reparation order imposed
Explanatory Statement, Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015 (ACT)
Parties:
The Queen ( Crown)
Jamie Arthur Banks ( Offender)
Representation:
Counsel
A Williamson ( Crown)
S Whybrow ( Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)
Aulich Criminal Law ( Offender)
File Number:
SCC 295 of 2021
KENNETT J:
Introduction
On 25 May 2022 the offender, Jamie Arthur Banks, pleaded guilty to two offences that he committed in August 2021.
(a) Make demand with threat to kill (joint commission) contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) read with s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
[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 Banks
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Banks [2022] ACTSC 202
Case
[2022] ACTSC 202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender, Jamie Arthur Banks, was convicted and sentenced for two offences: making a demand with a threat to kill, and possessing a prohibited weapon. The offender pleaded guilty to both offences before the Court. The Court found the objective seriousness of the offences to be in the low to mid-range, with the offence of making a demand with a threat to kill being slightly more serious than the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon. The Court considered various subjective factors, including the offender's background, family circumstances, employment history, drug use, health, and attitude towards the offences. The Court also took into account the principle of parity in comparison with sentences imposed on co-offenders and considered relevant sentencing purposes such as general and specific deterrence, adequate punishment, denunciation, and recognition of the harm done to the complainant. The Court imposed a sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment, to be served by an intensive corrections order in the community, including additional conditions such as community service, engagement in drug management programs and counselling, and a curfew. The Court also ordered the offender to make reparation to the victim in the sum of $1000.