R v BB - [2013] ACTSC 290

THE QUEEN v BB
[2013] ACTSC 290 (25 October 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentencing for breach of good behaviour order – Youthful offender – No matter of principle

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110, Pt 8A

Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 219 A Crim R 369
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 1022
Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465
R v BB (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 30 May 2013)
R v BB [2013] ACTSC 58
R v BM (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 14 February 2012)
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Henry (1999) 106 A Crim R 149
R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No.      SCC 254 of 2012
No.      SCC 360 of 2011
No.      SCC 409 of 2011
No.      SCC 21 of 2012

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 25 October 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No.      SCC 254 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No.      SCC 360 of 2011
  No.      SCC 409 of 2011
  No.      SCC 21 of 2012

THE QUEEN
V
BB

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  25 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The convictions entered for the offences committed by BB and dealt with on 14 February 2012 be confirmed.

It is satisfied that BB breached the good behaviour order imposed on 29 October 2012 by the offences committed on 4 August 2013 and by admitted failures to comply with lawful directions given to BB by the person delegated to supervise BB was suspended.

Under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the order made on 29 October 2012 be cancelled.

BB be re-sentenced as follows as follows:

The first sentence

For the aggravated burglary at Page on 1 September 2009, BB be sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2013.

For the theft of property from that aggravated burglary, BB be sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Page.

For the aggravated burglary at Braddon on 2 September 2009, BB be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment to commence on 16 March 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Page.

For the theft of property from the aggravated burglary, BB be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 March 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary at Braddon.

For the aggravated burglary at Kaleen on 20 February 2010, BB be sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Braddon.

For the theft of property from that aggravated burglary, BB be sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence…

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 BB

Details

AGLC: R v BB [2013] ACTSC 290
Case: [2013] ACTSC 290
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, BB, was convicted of various offences and dealt with on 14 February 2012. The matter before the court was an application for re-sentencing in relation to a breach of a good behaviour order. BB was represented by counsel, and the Crown was represented by a prosecutor. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for BB's breach of the good behaviour order, taking into account his age and previous convictions.

The court identified that the primary issue was whether BB's breach of the good behaviour order warranted a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed. The court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the importance of rehabilitation. The court also examined BB's previous convictions and the seriousness of the breach. Ultimately, the court held that BB's breach of the good behaviour order was not so serious as to warrant a more severe sentence than the one originally imposed.

The court confirmed the convictions entered for the offences committed by BB and dealt with on 14 February 2012. The court found that the original sentence was appropriate and did not require any modification. The court emphasised that BB's age and previous convictions were significant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the breach of the good behaviour order was not so serious as to warrant a more severe sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The convictions entered for the offences committed by BB and dealt with on 14 February 2012 be confirmed.

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.