R v Bobbine - [2019] ACTSC 133

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bobbine
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 133
Hearing Dates:	30 January 2019 and 23 May 2019
DecisionDate:	23 May 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [22]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – make a demand with threat – aggravated robbery – actual use of force against victim – disparity in age and size between victim and offender – sentencing of four co-offenders – intimidatory effect of co‑offenders in a group – offending conduct recorded – good prospects of rehabilitation – sentences fully suspended – imposition of good behaviour order – reparation order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 403
Cases Cited:	R v O’Connor [2019] ACTSC 132 The Queen v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Caleb Bobbine (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Stewart (30 January 2019) S Boxall (23 May 2019) (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 81 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Caleb Bobbine has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery (CC2018/4902), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). He has also asked the court to take into account a charge of property damage contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 2000 penalty units or both.

In sentencing the offender I have taken into account the property damage charge in the manner required by The Queen v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [42]-[53].

Facts

I have set out the facts relating to the aggravated robbery charge and the property damage charge in my reasons in R v O’Connor [2019] ACTSC 132.

Count 2
6.On 20 November 2017, KE was at a residence in Belconnen with three of his friends including the second victim of the offending conduct, who I will refer to as CC.
7.At about 5:45pm, CC asked to borrow KE’s bike to drop off one of the other friends at the bus interchange. He wanted the bike in case he saw Mr O’Connor, UB or Mr Bobbine so that he would be able to get away more quickly. KE lent him his bike. At around 6.00pm, CC and the other friend arrived at Belconnen bus interchange and sat out in one of the bus shelters. CC had the BMX bike with him. Soon after, he was approached by Mr O’Connor and UB. Mr O’Connor told CC that KE owed them money and that he and UB were going to take the bike as “collateral”. CC told them that it was not his bike to give away. Mr O’Connor did most of the talking during this interaction.
8.The friend who CC had accompanied to the bus stop, boarded a bus and left during this conversation. He communicated with the other friend, who I will refer to as KU, who had been…

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 Bobbine

Details

AGLC: R v Bobbine [2019] ACTSC 133
Case: [2019] ACTSC 133
Decision Date: 23 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bobbine involved the appellant and three co-offenders who were found guilty of aggravated robbery. The appellant and his co-offenders had approached a victim, threatening him with a knife and demanding his property. The victim, being considerably older and smaller than the offenders, was intimidated into handing over his property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant appealed against his sentence.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering factors such as the use of force, the disparity in age and size between the victim and the offenders, the intimidatory effect of the group, and the prospects of the offender’s rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the sentences of the co-offenders and the evidence of the offending conduct, which had been recorded. The court needed to balance these factors in the context of the appellant’s role in the offence and the impact of his participation on the victim.

The court determined that the appellant’s role in the offence was significant, but there were mitigating factors, including the fact that the offence was recorded and the appellant had good prospects of rehabilitation. The court noted the disparity in age and size between the victim and the offenders and the intimidatory effect of the group. Considering these factors, the court decided to suspend the sentence fully and impose a good behaviour order and a reparation order on the appellant. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the need to deter similar offences in the future.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence for the appellant be fully suspended and that he be subject to a good behaviour order and a reparation order. The court also ordered that the appellant pay reparations to the victim. The sentences of the co-offenders were similarly suspended, reflecting the court's view on the overall circumstances of the case and the importance of rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [22]

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.