Legal Research
Cases
R v Batcheldor

R v Batcheldor

Case [2021] ACTSC 208 30 August 2021

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Indictable Offences

Sentencing

Rehabilitation

Breach of Good Behaviour Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Batcheldor
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 208
Hearing Dates:	25 March and 30 August 2021
DecisionDate:	30 August 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [52]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery – damaging property – breach of good behaviour order – significant criminal history – high risk of reoffending – no evidence of link between offending and mental health conditions – sentences of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310(a), 403 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 66(3)
Cases Cited:	R v Hawkins [2020] ACTSC 29 R v Heijm [2021] ACTSC 17 R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214 R v Murray [2016] ACTSC 173
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Anthony Batcheldor ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Smith ( Crown) F Purnell SC ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Tim Sharman Solicitors ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 237 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Anthony Batcheldor, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)count 1: aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both; and
(b)count 2: damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.

This offending is said to put the offender in breach of a 12-month good behaviour order that was imposed as part of a suspended sentence imposed by a magistrate on 15 May 2020 on a charge of attempted escape from arrest.

Facts

The facts in relation to the offending are agreed and are, in summary, as follows.

The victim met the offender in June 2019 and had regular interactions with him since then. At some point in 2019 the offender gave the victim a number of silver coins. The offender was of the view that the coins were worth $500,000 and asked the victim to see if anyone might buy them. The victim took the coins to an acquaintance with some knowledge of coins, who I will refer to as CG, but later forgot about them.

A few weeks before the offences, the offender called the victim and asked where the coins were. The victim said he had given them to CG. The victim called CG who told him that she could not find the coins, but that they were fake and not worth any money. The offender again contacted the victim. When the victim reported what CG said, the offender hung up. The parties agreed that the offender’s motivation for the subsequent offending was to seek compensation and retribution from the victim in relation to the missing coins, which the offender regarded as valuable.

At approximately 2pm on 13 June 2020, the offender called the victim and demanded $1000 in two…

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 Batcheldor

Details

AGLC: R v Batcheldor [2021] ACTSC 208
Case: [2021] ACTSC 208
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Batcheldor involved the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, where Anthony Batcheldor, the offender, pleaded guilty to two charges: aggravated robbery under s 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and damaging property under s 403 of the same code. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for these offences, which were committed while Batcheldor was under a good behaviour order stemming from a previous charge of attempted escape from arrest. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which involved a violent home invasion and theft, and the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his significant criminal history and ongoing substance abuse issues. The court also examined the breach of the good behaviour order and the offender's risk of reoffending.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the determination of an appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature and seriousness of the offences, the offender's personal circumstances, and the need for specific deterrence and denunciation. The court had to consider the impact of Batcheldor's extensive criminal history, his current mental health status, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the breach of the good behaviour order warranted further action, given that it had already been addressed in a previous sentencing. The court also had to calculate the non-parole period for the sentence, balancing the gravity of the offending against the potential for rehabilitation.

The court reasoned that the offences were of significant seriousness, involving violence and theft in the victim's home, and that the offender's criminal history indicated a high risk of reoffending. While Batcheldor's drug use was a factor in the offending, it was not the primary driver. The court found that the purposes of sentencing, particularly specific deterrence and denunciation, outweighed the potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that the plea of guilty warranted a discount of approximately 20 per cent on the starting point for sentencing. The court also decided that no further action was necessary regarding the breach of the good behaviour order, as it had already been addressed in a previous sentence. The non-parole period was set at approximately 65 per cent of the overall sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the guarded prospects for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced Batcheldor to three years and five months' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery charge, and 14 months and 15 days for the damaging property charge, to be served concurrently except for five months. The non-parole period was set to end on 25 November 2024. The court also reimposed a sentence of 58 days for the breach of the good behaviour order, to be served concurrently.

Orders