1.	Mr Bessant be convicted of aggravated burglary at Hume on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, to commence on 9 June 2020.
2.	Mr Bessant be convicted of dishonestly taking and using a motor vehicle without the owner's consent on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 October 2021.
3.	Mr Bessant be convicted of theft on 13 September 2019 at Hume, and be sentenced to five month's imprisonment, to commence on 9 April 2022.
4.	Mr Bessant be convicted of the first burglary at Dickson on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 August 2021.
5.	Mr Bessant be convicted of the theft from the first burglary at Dickson on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 December 2022.
6.	Mr Bessant be convicted of the second burglary at Dickson on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 February 2022.
7.	Mr Bessant be convicted of the theft during the second burglary at Dickson on 13 September 2019, and be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 May 2023.
8.	Mr Bessant be convicted of the burglary at Turner on 20 September 2019, and be sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 July 2022.
9.	Mr Bessant be convicted of theft during that burglary on 20 September 2019, and be sentenced to five months' imprisonment, to commence on 9 October 2023.
10.	Mr Bessant be required to make reparation by payment of $926.25 to Ms Yangxue Sun. That amount is not to be paid before 9 October 2020 and either party is given liberty to apply to set aside that Order if cause is shown.
11.	A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made in respect of Robert George Bessant for a period of 12 months from today, 25 September 2020, for the primary offence of aggravated burglary at Hume on 13 September 2019.
12.	The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be extended to the three offences of burglary, four offences of theft and an offence of dishonestly taking and using a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, all being associated offences.
13.	It be noted that the convictions have been recorded and sentences have been imposed for the primary and associated offences, which convictions and sentences, commencing on 9 June 2020 and ending on 8 March 2024, are hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
14.	The sentence of three years and nine months be suspended from today, until the end of the term of imprisonment, under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
15.	with the…

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 Bessant

Details

AGLC: R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365
Case: [2020] ACTSC 365
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bessant was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory before Refshauge AJ. The accused, Robert George Bessant, pleaded guilty to a series of offences committed on 13 September 2019, and 20 September 2019. These included one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of burglary, four counts of theft, and one count of dishonestly taking and using a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence and whether a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order should be made under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

Refshauge AJ considered the statutory purposes of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, recognition of the victims' harm, and rehabilitation. The court also took into account the subjective circumstances of the accused, including his history of drug addiction and criminal behaviour, as well as his expressed desire to reform and participate in a rehabilitation program. The court found that the accused was suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and made such an order for a period of 12 months. The sentence of three years and nine months was suspended, and the accused was ordered to comply with various conditions, including attending counselling and treatment programs, and reporting to the court.

In summary, the court convicted the accused of all charges and sentenced him to a total of three years and nine months' imprisonment, which was suspended and replaced with a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The accused was also ordered to pay reparation to one of the victims and comply with various conditions as part of the Treatment Order.

Orders