R v Booth - [2021] ACTSC 223

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Booth
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 223
Hearing Date:	31 August 2021
DecisionDate:	1 September 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [64]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary – offender found guilty at jury trial – offending did not involve pre-mediation – no entry into the house proper – offender otherwise of good character – good behaviour order with community service work condition imposed CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – related charge – transfer charge of common assault – determination of charge following jury trial – offence proved beyond reasonable doubt – sentence – offending in the mid-range of objective seriousness – good behaviour order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 312 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 10
Cases Cited:	Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Melanie Booth ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson ( Crown) B Morrisroe ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) David Healey Solicitors ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 202 of 2019 SCC 203 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 2 July 2021, at the conclusion of an eight-day trial, a jury found the offender, Melanie Booth, guilty of one count of aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) on a joint indictment dated 21 June 2021 (CC2019/1372). The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 20 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both.

The Crown’s case was that the offender was guilty of a joint commission offence of aggravated burglary, or alternatively, guilty of the offence other than by joint commission. The jury was not required to indicate if they had found the offender guilty of the offence by way of joint commission or other than by joint commission.

On the same day, the jury found the offender’s four co-accused, Stancy (Bonnie) Booth, Deanne Booth, Richard Booth and Sharniesha Booth not guilty of a single count of aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code. The charge against each of the four co-accused was by way of joint commission. The alternative of finding the offender’s co-accused guilty of the offence of aggravated burglary other than by joint commission was only put to the jury in relation to Stancy.

Having regard to the jury’s verdicts, the verdict of guilty for the offender must have been on the aggravated burglary charge simpliciter rather than the aggravated burglary charge by joint commission.

The offender has also pleaded not guilty to a transfer charge of common assault (CC2019/1374) arising out of the same incident. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate for me to hear submissions and determine whether that charge had been proved at the time of sentencing 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 Booth

Details

AGLC: R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223
Case: [2021] ACTSC 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Booth, Melanie Booth was found guilty of aggravated burglary by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the charge of aggravated burglary and a related charge of common assault. The court had to consider whether the offender's actions were premeditated and if she entered the building proper or remained within the patio area. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the offender was guilty of the transfer charge of common assault and if she was acting in self-defence.

The court concluded that the offender was guilty of the charge of aggravated burglary, but not by joint commission. The court found that the intention to commit an offence involving causing harm or threatening to cause harm was formed after the offender was already on the patio, and not before. The court also concluded that the offender was guilty of the transfer charge of common assault, as she initiated the fight with the victim, MD, and was not acting in self-defence.

The court took into account the subjective circumstances of the offender, her otherwise good character, and the delays in the conduct of jury trials. The court considered that the purposes of sentencing could be met by the imposition of lenient sentences, and thus decided to sentence the offender with a good behaviour order combined with a short period of community service for the charge of aggravated burglary, and a good behaviour order for the charge of common assault.

Orders