R v Booth (No 3) - [2021] ACTSC 309

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Booth (No 3)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 309
Hearing Dates:	22 and 23 November 2021
DecisionDate:	23 November 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [9]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – offender acquitted in trial by jury – transfer charge of property damage – offending did not involve pre-meditation – significant criminal history involving property offending – current offending not a continuation of previous, drug-related offending – good behaviour order with a period of community service imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 116(3)
Cases Cited:	R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 R v Booth (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 255
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Richard Booth ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey ( Crown) J De Bruin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 177 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 2 July 2021, following an eight-day trial, the offender, Richard Booth, was acquitted by a jury on a charge of aggravated burglary. There was a transfer charge of property damage contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), arising out of the same factual circumstances (CC2019/1404). This was particularised as being that the offender damaged a wooden door and door frame. On 1 October 2021, I found the offender guilty of this charge: see R v Booth (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 255 (R v Booth (No 2)). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, 50 penalty units or both. No reparation order was sought.

Facts

The background facts are set out in my reasons for sentencing Melanie Booth: see R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 at [7]-[17]. I gave my findings of fact in relation to the transfer charge in R v Booth (No 2) at [24]-[26]. The property damage involved kicking the door to a house as part of an attempt to gain entry to the house. The offender was part of a group of men and women at the door of the house.

Objective seriousness

The offending occurred in the context of a group attempting to gain access to a family’s house. I do not find that the offender’s conduct was pre-meditated but rather, he is likely to have been carried along with the chaos and heightened emotion of the incident. He was not responsible for the creation of that incident or the actions of others. Having regard to the nature of the property damaged and the circumstances in which the offending occurred, the offending is below the mid-range of objective seriousness for this offence.

Subjective circumstances

The offender is 44 years old. He had a disrupted upbringing. His parents separated when he was young. He was exposed to family violence and was made for a period a ward of the state. He has three children to three separate former partners. They all reside interstate. He resides with his partner…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Booth (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 309
Case: [2021] ACTSC 309
Decision Date: 23 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Booth (No 3) involved the respondent, Booth, who was acquitted by a jury of charges relating to property damage but subsequently faced a transfer charge. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence in this case. The central legal issue revolved around the sentencing of an offender acquitted by a jury, specifically whether the sentence should be influenced by the offender's prior criminal history and whether the current offence was a continuation of previous, drug-related offending.

The Court considered the nature and context of the offending, finding that while the current offence did not involve pre-meditation, Booth's significant criminal history did not necessarily indicate a continuation of prior, drug-related offending. The Court recognised the importance of individualising sentences to reflect the specific circumstances of each case, including the offender's background and the characteristics of the offence. The Court held that a sentence should not be overly punitive if the current offence did not involve pre-meditation and was not a continuation of prior offending.

Ultimately, the Court imposed a good behaviour order coupled with a period of community service. This decision emphasised the need to balance the deterrence and rehabilitation objectives of sentencing with the individual circumstances of the offender. The Court's approach highlighted the importance of a nuanced consideration of an offender's history and the nature of the current offence in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [9]

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.