R v Bennett - [2015] ACTSC 36

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bennett
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 36
Hearing Dates:	18 December 2014 and 16, 18 and 20 February 2015
DecisionDate:	16 February 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 11 August 2014 and suspended from 16 February 2015 on a good behaviour order with immediate residential rehabilitation.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – early guilty plea – aggravated robbery – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Melissa Anne Bennett (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoynes-Scutts (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 231 of 2014; SCC 232 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

The offender adheres to a plea of guilty entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity to the offence that on 27 June 2014, she committed an aggravated robbery. This is an offence contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It carries a maximum available penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a substantial fine.

Pending sentence, the offender breached bail by failing to attend an appointment and by submitting a urine sample that tested positive. As a result, bail was revoked and the offender has been in custody since 13 August 2014.

The Offence

On 27 June 2014, the victim was working behind the counter at Coles Express in Braddon. The manager was present in a back office.

The victim observed the offender ride her bicycle into the petrol pump area at about 5.00 pm. He observed her acting suspiciously; she was wearing a hooded jacket with the hood pulled up over her head and forehead.

The offender entered the store, removed a silver bladed knife from her front area and approached the victim. She pointed the knife at him and said aggressively, "Give me the money or I'll fucking kill you."

The victim opened the till and removed a $50 note. The offender jumped onto the counter, placing her torso under the lower piece of security wire. She reached towards the open cash register and grabbed notes from the tray. The victim threw a $50 note towards the offender but it landed on the floor on his side of the counter. The offender demanded that he pick it up or she would "kill him." The victim threw the note onto the counter towards the offender.

The offender took the cash and ran from the store. She mounted her bicycle and rode off. She had taken $230 from the cash register.

CCTV footage recorded the incident. Later that afternoon, the offender was arrested. When she was searched, police located the knife that had been used in the robbery and a significant quantity of the currency that had been taken from the service station.

Subjective Circumstances

The offender was 37 years of age at the time…

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 Bennett

Details

AGLC: R v Bennett [2015] ACTSC 36
Case: [2015] ACTSC 36
Decision Date: 16 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bennett, the respondent was charged with aggravated robbery, which involved the use of a knife during the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent entered an early guilty plea and was sentenced. The legal issues the court had to address included the appropriate sentence for the offence and the consideration of the respondent's early guilty plea and prospects of rehabilitation. The court examined the severity of the offence, the respondent's background, and the potential for rehabilitation through residential treatment. The court determined that a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, backdated to the date of the offence, was appropriate. However, considering the respondent's early guilty plea and the recommendation for immediate residential rehabilitation, the court suspended the sentence from 16 February 2015 and placed the respondent on a good behaviour order, contingent on the respondent entering and completing a residential rehabilitation program. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, recognising the need for punishment while also considering the potential for the respondent's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 11 August 2014 and suspended from 16 February 2015 on a good behaviour order with immediate residential rehabilitation.

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.