R v Beattie - [2019] ACTSC 12

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Beattie
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 12
Hearing Date:	5 February 2019
DecisionDate:	5 February 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [19]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempt aggravated robbery – drive motor vehicle without consent
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 33 Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110
Cases Cited:	R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71 R v Keenan [2014] ACTSC 342 R v Sampson [2014] ACTSC 210 R v Thompson [2017] ACTSC 141
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Merlin Jarred Beattie ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Mr J Stewart (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 59 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 22 November 2018, the offender was found guilty by a jury on two counts in an indictment dated 11 April 2018. The first count was that he had attempted to commit an aggravated robbery in company with another person and at the time had an offensive weapon with him. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $375,000.

The second count was that he dishonestly drove a motor vehicle belonging to someone else. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $75,000.

The two offences were part of the same criminal enterprise. The stolen vehicle, a VW Jetta, was taken by the offender and another man. Using the vehicle, they tried to rob the McDonald’s drive-through in Griffith in the early hours of 15 June 2017.

The offender was alleged to have been the driver of the vehicle. His passenger had a gun and threatened the cashier accompanied by a demand for cash. The unquestionably amateur robbers did not foreshadow the quick thinking of the cashier, who in response to the demand, simply closed the window.

The availability of CCTV footage of the robbery essentially answered the need to prove the ingredients of the offence. There was really only one issue left for the jury to decide and that was whether or not it was the offender who was the driver of the VW Jetta. His presence in the motor vehicle was not disputed because his DNA and fingerprints were found in different parts of the vehicle and on an object within it. The offender, through a record of interview, gave an explanation for his presence and that of his DNA and fingerprints, but this was clearly not accepted by the jury.

The jury’s verdict indicates that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the offender who was the driver of the vehicle. Once that fact was established it followed, without dispute, that the offender was guilty of the two offences.

I have no doubt this was a very frightening experience for the cashier. The CCTV footage plainly shows his quick reaction…

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 Beattie

Details

AGLC: R v Beattie [2019] ACTSC 12
Case: [2019] ACTSC 12
Decision Date: 5 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Beattie involved a dispute concerning the defendant's actions, which included an attempted aggravated robbery while driving a motor vehicle without consent. The matter was heard in the higher court, where the defendant's sentence was contested on grounds of its severity and appropriateness. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the offence committed, considering the defendant's criminal history and the nature of the crime.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the principles of sentencing for attempted aggravated robbery and whether the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence. The court was also required to consider whether the defendant's driving without consent constituted an aggravating factor that warranted a harsher punishment. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the sentence was within the bounds of what is considered just and appropriate under the relevant statutory frameworks.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the attempted aggravated robbery but found that the sentence imposed was excessive. The court recognised the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record and his otherwise good character as mitigating factors. It was determined that while the offence was severe, the sentence did not appropriately balance the need for punishment with the principles of justice and proportionality. The court subsequently ordered a review and adjustment of the sentence to ensure it was more aligned with established sentencing guidelines and principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]

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.