R v Beath-Williams - [2019] ACTSC 80

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Beath-Williams
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 80
Hearing Date:	29 January 2019, 28 March 2019
DecisionDate:	28 March 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [15]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – re-sentence for prior conviction – breach of suspended sentence – suitable for Intensive Correction Order
Legislation:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110
Cases:	R v Beath-Williams [2018] ACTSC 162
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Andrew Beath-Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr C Wanigaratne (Crown) Mr H Jorgensen (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 258 of 2018; SCC 207 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 3 October 2018, the offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of burglary with intent to steal and one count of theft.

The offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a)Burglary (CC 2018/7782) contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), 14 years imprisonment, a fine of $210,000 or both.
(b)Theft (CC 2018/7783) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $150,000 or both.

Both these offences occurred on 5 June 2018. The burglary charge relates to the offender entering the rear loading dock area of an Aldi Supermarket and then subsequently the main shopping area of the Supermarket. The theft charge relates to the offender stealing a selection of bottles of alcohol inside the store which had a total value of $119.95. These events were captured on CCTV footage.

Upon conviction of these offences, the offender will be in breach of a 12 month Good Behaviour Order. On 31 May 2018, I sentenced the offender to a term of 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended immediately upon the condition that the offender enter into a 12 month Good Behaviour Order: R v Beath-Williams [2018] ACTSC 162. I note that these current offences occurred only approximately two-months after this sentence was imposed.

Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the court once satisfied that an offender has breached their good behaviour obligations must cancel the good behaviour order and either:

(a) impose the suspended sentence imposed for the offence; or

(b) re-sentence the offender for the offence.

The offender first came before me in respect of these matters on 29 January 2019 when he sought an adjournment and referral for an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) assessment. The Crown did not oppose this application. The ICO assessment has now been completed and the offender has been assessed as suitable.

The assessment report, dated 26 March 2019, is very useful both in setting out relevant features about the offender and also suggesting an appropriate way to deal with him. This offender has an appalling record and he does not do very well with obeying good behaviour and like orders.

I should say at…

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 Beath-Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Beath-Williams [2019] ACTSC 80
Case: [2019] ACTSC 80
Decision Date: 28 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Beath-Williams involved the appellant, Beath-Williams, who was convicted of burglary and theft. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant had a prior conviction for a similar offence and had breached a suspended sentence. The court was required to determine if the sentence was appropriate and whether the appellant was suitable for an Intensive Correction Order.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the appellant was suitable for an Intensive Correction Order. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the circumstances of the breach of the suspended sentence. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's previous conviction and the risk of reoffending.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the appellant was suitable for an Intensive Correction Order. The court noted that the appellant had a history of offending and had breached a suspended sentence, which demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation and a high risk of reoffending. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence, which involved a burglary and theft, and concluded that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the appellant was suitable for an Intensive Correction Order as it would provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and address the risk of reoffending.

The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced and that an Intensive Correction Order be imposed. The court noted that the appellant had shown some remorse and had taken steps to address his drug addiction, which were factors in favour of an Intensive Correction Order. The court also noted that the appellant had a supportive family and had been working to improve his circumstances. The court concluded that an Intensive Correction Order would provide the appellant with an opportunity to address the underlying causes of his offending and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [15]

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.