R v Barrett

Case [2015] ACTSC 280


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Barrett

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 280

Hearing Date(s):

27 August 2015

DecisionDate:

3 September 2015

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [31] – [40]

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – dishonesty offences – dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent – driving while disqualified – attempted burglary – attempted aggravated burglary – resisting a public official – possessing an offensive weapon with intent to cause actual or threatened violence – theft – possessing an article with intent to use in a burglary – burglary.

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Rodney Thomas Barrett (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr C Wanigaratne (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 141 of 2015; SCC 142 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. Rodney Barrett, you have adhered to pleas of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court in relation to the following offences:  one offence of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent on 3 December 2014; one offence of driving whilst disqualified on the same date; one offence of attempted burglary on 29 January 2015; one offence of attempted aggravated robbery on the same date; one offence of resisting a public official on the same date; two offences of possessing an offensive weapon with intent to cause actual or threatened violence on the same date; one offence of theft on the same date; one offence of possession of an article with intent to use in a burglary on the same date; and one offence of burglary on that date.  Some of these charges were committed for sentence from the Magistrates Court, while others were transferred to this Court as related matters. 

Facts

  1. A Statement of Facts was placed before the Court. I will not go through the facts in detail.  It is sufficient to note that, on 3 December 2014, you drove a white Nissan Navara motor vehicle belonging to a Mr Martin O'Sullivan.  That vehicle had been taken without Mr O'Sullivan's permission sometime between 9 pm on 26 October and 6.30 am on 27 October last year.  At the time you drove this vehicle, you were disqualified from driving.

  1. On 29 January 2015, you attempted to enter premises in Palmerston without the permission of the owner of the residence.  At the time, you had an intention to take property without the permission of the owner.  I note that this offence occurred in the early afternoon, and you were confronted at a sliding door as you attempted to enter the premises by a female occupant. 

  1. Later on the same date, you attempted to steal a motor vehicle belonging to a Mr Marcus Eagles.  During the attempted theft you threatened Mr Eagles by brandishing a metal pole. 

  1. Later on the same day, you attempted to enter different premises in Palmerston without the permission of the owner.  At that time, you had an intention to steal property from the premises.  This offence again occurred…

Continue reading R v Barrett

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Barrett [2015] ACTSC 280
Case
[2015] ACTSC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Barrett, the respondent was charged with a series of serious criminal offences, including dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, driving while disqualified, attempted burglary, attempted aggravated burglary, resisting a public official, possessing an offensive weapon with intent to cause actual or threatened violence, theft, possessing an article with intent to use in a burglary, and burglary. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the cumulative effect of the respondent's criminal conduct, the relevance of the respondent's previous criminal history, and the appropriate weight to be given to the various aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.

The court found that the respondent's criminal conduct was extremely serious and that it involved a high degree of planning and premeditation. The court also found that the respondent had a significant history of criminal offending, which demonstrated a clear pattern of behaviour that was likely to continue unless the respondent was subject to significant periods of incarceration. The court noted that the respondent had shown some remorse for his actions, but that this was insufficient to warrant a significant reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court held that the appropriate sentence for the respondent was one that would serve to both punish him for his criminal conduct and to deter him and others from engaging in similar offending in the future.

The court sentenced the respondent to a total of eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The court found that this sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the respondent's criminal conduct, his previous criminal history, and the need to ensure public safety. The court also noted that the sentence would serve to both punish the respondent and to deter him and others from engaging in similar offending in the future. The court further ordered that the respondent be subject to a number of ancillary orders, including a requirement to participate in rehabilitation programs and to comply with a number of other conditions designed to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [31] – [40]

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.