R v Bourne; R v Manns

Case [2018] ACTSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Bourne; R v Manns

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 35

Hearing Date:

27 February 2018

DecisionDate:

27 February 2018

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [34] – [35]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – demands accompanied by threats – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – receiving stolen property – pleas of guilty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19 and 32

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 313 and 603

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

CX v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 37

R v Bourne [2014] ACTSC 401

R v Bourne [2015] ACTSC 181

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Alex Bourne (Offender – Bourne)

Connor Manns (Offender – Manns)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Williamson (Crown)

Mr J Stewart (Offender - Bourne)

Ms L Taylor (Offender – Manns)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Boxall Legal (Offender – Bourne)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender – Manns)

File Numbers:

SCC 109 of 2017; SCC 130 of 2017; SCC 145 of 2017; SCC 146 of 2017; SCC 194 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

  1. Two offenders have appeared for sentence today. For convenience, I will refer to them by their surnames.

  1. Mr Bourne has pleaded guilty to the following four charges:

(a)Intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CC 2017/3120), contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Demands accompanied by threats (XO 2017/3114), contrary to s 32 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

(c)Trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis (CC 2016/13215), contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment.

(d)Receiving stolen property (CC 17/02274), contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years’ imprisonment.

  1. Mr Manns has pleaded guilty to one count of demands accompanied by threats (XO 2017/31145), contrary to s 32 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

  1. Mr Bourne and Mr Manns were co-offenders in respect of the charge that is common to them.

  1. It is convenient for me to deal with Mr Manns first because of the approach taken by the Crown.

Mr Manns

  1. Mr Manns was born in 1998. He had a stable upbringing and has the support of his parents and three siblings. He completed Year 10 and is presently employed as a traffic controller. He does not drink too much but does have a history of using illicit drugs. His use of drugs and association with unsavoury colleagues has led to his presence in Court today.

  1. Mr Manns has a criminal record which must be taken into account. He has, however, indicated a degree of…

Continue reading R v Bourne; R v Manns

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] ACTSC 35
Case
[2018] ACTSC 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Bourne and Manns, were before the court on various charges including intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, making demands accompanied by threats, trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, and receiving stolen property. Both applicants entered pleas of guilty to these charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for each offence and whether any of the offences were to be considered as part of an offending episode.

The legal issues that arose included whether the offences were to be treated as part of an offending episode, and if so, how this would affect the sentencing. Another issue was the appropriate sentence for each offence, considering the totality of the offending and the circumstances surrounding each offence. The court had to consider the severity of the offences, the applicants' culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court found that the offences were to be treated as part of a single offending episode due to their close temporal and thematic proximity. In determining the sentence, the court considered the totality of the offending, the severity of each offence, and the circumstances in which they were committed. The court also took into account the applicants' pleas of guilty, which were seen as an acknowledgment of their responsibility and a step towards rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences while also considering the applicants' prospects for rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders included a custodial sentence for Bourne and a suspended sentence for Manns, with specific conditions attached to the latter. The sentences were tailored to reflect the seriousness of the offending and the individual circumstances of each applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34] – [35]

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.