R v Biles
[2015] ACTSC 89
•2 April 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Biles |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 89 |
Hearing Date: | 2 April 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 2 April 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment, suspended upon the offender entering into a two year good behaviour order. Reparation order. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – property offences - dishonesty offences – burglary – theft – early guilty plea – discount - rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 13(3), 19(3), 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Tim Joe Biles (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms K Mackenzie (Crown) Mr J Jeffrey (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 258 of 2014 |
Murrell CJ:
The offender adheres to pleas of guilty entered in the Supreme Court to offences of burglary and theft committed on 19 May 2014.
The offence of burglary is contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code). The maximum available penalty for burglary is 14 years' imprisonment and/or a substantial fine. The offence of theft is contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum available penalty for theft is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a substantial fine.
The offender pleaded guilty on 27 February 2015, after the matter was committed to the Supreme Court but before a trial date had been set. Taking into account the considerations in s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), particularly the stage at which the plea was entered and its utilitarian value, an appropriate discount is in the vicinity of 15 to 20%.
Background to the Subject Offences
At about 10.35am on 19 May 2014 the proprietor of domestic premises at Wanniassa left the premises in a secure condition. He was absent for a period of about four hours. During that period, the offender forced open a locked wooden door at the back of the residence, using a tool on the timber door frame near the lock. He entered the residence. He went to the master bedroom, took a large amount of silver coins from a tin and two ladies' watches from a jewellery box. He went to another bedroom and took a fishing knife. The total value of the property taken was $740. While he was at the residence, he also went through the kitchen, scattering the contents of a wooden tray onto the floor.
When spoken to by police on 10 June 2012, he denied involvement in the offence. On 10 August 2014 he was arrested for an unrelated matter. While being spoken to for that matter, he referred to breaking into a house and leaving a fingerprint on a tin. A palm print was lifted from the tin from which the offender had removed coins. It matched the left palm impression of the offender.
Objective Seriousness of the Subject Offences
The objective seriousness of the offences is unremarkable. The burglary involved domestic premises during daylight. It was committed during the day when nobody was present, nor would anyone be expected to be present. The property that was stolen was of a relatively low value, $740. It is not known whether the two ladies' watches that were taken were of any sentimental value. I assume that they were not. While any offence of this nature is of some objective seriousness, the particular offences are towards the lower end of the spectrum.
Subjective Circumstances of the Offender
The offender is now 20 years of age. He is an Indigenous person. He was 19 years old at the date of the offences. He has had some contact with the juvenile justice system. There is a hiatus in his involvement for a period of two years, 2012 to 2014, a not insignificant period in the life of a young person.
There are two other matters recorded against him as an adult. Each is a driving matter; there is a drink driving and a related matter of being a learner driver unaccompanied. These offences occurred in August 2014, after the subject offences. In any event, they are of a different nature, although serious enough in themselves.
The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) indicates that the offender enjoys the support of a close family, his mother and siblings. He has no contact with his father. He had limited education, and left school in Year 8. He was unemployed at the time of the subject offences. Recently, he has gained employment five days a week as an apprentice plasterer. In that regard he has been assisted by Habitat Personnel. It is a specialist provider offering employment and training opportunities to Indigenous people in the Canberra area. Habitat Personnel has found the offender enthusiastic and committed to finding employment. He is very happy in his current position as an apprentice plasterer and would like to pursue a career in that field. The apprenticeship will require part-time study.
There are some concerns, despite his denials, that the offender is still involved with peers who may have an adverse impact upon him. He reports continuing use of cannabis at a moderate level. He may be involved with others who use illicit substances. He says that he has significantly reduced his cannabis consumption and is working towards abstention.
In relation to his attitude to the offences, he shows some maturity, taking responsibility for his actions and demonstrating some victim empathy. He is prepared to offer reparation to the victim. The offender indicated to the author of the PSR that he believed that he had grown up as a person since the offence and was actively pursuing pro-social activities, including employment and accessing support services.
He is assessed as having a low to medium risk of reoffending. The risk is related to previous involvement with the justice system and continuing illicit substance use. His stable accommodation, employment and the support of his current partner and family are factors which inform against future recidivism. He may benefit from engaging with an Aboriginal youth corporation for culturally appropriate support and mentoring.
The offences reflect some of the same behaviour that occurred in 2011, but it is the first occasion that he has reverted to that behaviour. There are significant factors that suggest he may be at a turning point in his life. In particular, he has matured and gained insight into his offending behaviour. He enjoys family support and he has employment and has employment support through Habitat Personnel. He has prospects for the future.
I have had regard to the ACT Sentencing Database. It indicates that the vast majority of offenders convicted of burglary, who are aged 18 to 20, receive a fully suspended sentence. I consider that to be the most appropriate outcome in the current circumstances.
I have also had regard to the New South Wales Sentencing Database. It indicates that for matters of this type, where there is one offence only and an offender of 18 to 20 years, a typical sentence is imprisonment. Nonetheless a significant number of people, 22%, receive a suspended sentence.
Sentence
The offender is convicted of each matter.
For the offence of burglary, the starting point is a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, but reducing it by about 15%, the offender is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. I impose a concurrent sentence of nine months' imprisonment for the theft matter.
Pursuant to s 12 of the Sentencing Act, I make a suspended sentence order suspending the whole of the sentences of imprisonment and I make a good behaviour order for a period of two years from today. The good behaviour order is subject to the following conditions:
(a)The offender is to report to ACT Corrective Services at Eclipse House by 4pm today and accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services.
(b)Supervision is to continue for as long as ACT Corrective Services considers necessary.
Pursuant to s 19(3) of the Sentencing Act, I make a reparation order requiring the offender to make reparation to the victim, by way of payment of $740 for the losses that are the subject of the theft conviction. The offender is to pay $100 each calendar month into the Court. The first payment is to be paid prior to 30 April 2015 and thereafter $100 is to be paid into the Court each calendar month for payment out to the victim.
Pursuant to s 13(3)(e) of the Sentencing Act, it is a further condition of the good behaviour order that the offender comply with the reparation order.
| I certify that the preceding twenty [20] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell. Associate: Date: 20 April 2015 |
0
0
2