R v Brenden Joseph Gibbs - [2014] ACTSC 292

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Brenden Joseph Gibbs
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 292
Hearing Date(s):	8 May 2014
DecisionDate:	21 July 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aggravated burglary of 10 October 2012. 2. For that offence, Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment from 21 July 2014. 3. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of theft on 10 October 2012. 4. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment from 21 July 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the aggravated burglary. 5. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aiding and abetting Rodney Joseph Wray who, by deception, dishonestly obtained property belonging to another on 10 October 2012. 6. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, to commence on 21 July 2015. That is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the offence of aggravated burglary. 7. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aiding and abetting Rodney John Wray in the offence of by deception, dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another on 10 October 2012. 8. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 21 July 2015. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the earlier aid and abet. 9. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of possessing a firearm without licence to do so. 10. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 21 April 2014. That is to take into account pre-sentence custody. 11. That sentence be suspended for a period of two years from 21 July 2014. 12. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with the following conditions: (a) a probation condition that he be under supervision of the Director‑General, or her delegate, for two years, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him, determines, and obey all reasonable directions of that person, especially as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling, mental health treatment and counselling, and to undertake such educational or vocational courses as he may be directed to take by the person delegated to supervise him; and (b) to submit to urinalysis when reasonably required by the person delegated to supervise him.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary – Theft – Aiding and abetting – Dishonestly obtaining property by deception – Possessing a firearm without authority
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 27, 118 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT).
Cases Cited:	R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293
R v Ross [2011] ACTSC 211
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brenden Joseph Gibbs (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Clarke (Crown) Mr J Lawton (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s):

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Brenden Joseph Gibbs and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] ACTSC 292
Decision Date: 21 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brenden Joseph Gibbs involved a number of criminal charges brought against the respondent. The charges included aggravated burglary, theft, aiding and abetting in the offence of obtaining property by deception, and possessing a firearm without a licence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant criminal statutes to the facts of the case. This included determining whether the prosecution had proved each of the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and if so, what sentence should be imposed for each offence. The court also had to consider whether any of the sentences should run concurrently or cumulatively.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proved all the charges against the respondent. It was determined that the aggravated burglary and theft occurred on the same date and that the respondent had aided and abetted another individual in committing the deception offence. The court further found that the respondent was in possession of a firearm without a licence at the time of the offences. In determining the appropriate sentences, the court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the respondent’s criminal history. The sentences for the aggravated burglary and theft were ordered to run concurrently, while the sentences for the aiding and abetting offences and the firearm possession offence were ordered to run cumulatively and concurrently as appropriate.

The final orders of the court included convictions for all the charges, along with specific sentences for each offence. The sentences were to commence on various dates, some to run concurrently and others cumulatively. Additionally, the court imposed good behaviour obligations on the respondent, including supervision, participation in treatment programs, and submission to urinalysis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aggravated burglary of 10 October 2012.

2. For that offence, Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment from 21 July 2014.

3. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of theft on 10 October 2012.

4. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment from 21 July 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the aggravated burglary.

5. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aiding and abetting Rodney Joseph Wray who, by deception, dishonestly obtained property belonging to another on 10 October 2012.

6. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, to commence on 21 July 2015. That is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the offence of aggravated burglary.

7. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aiding and abetting Rodney John Wray in the offence of by deception, dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another on 10 October 2012.

8. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 21 July 2015. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the earlier aid and abet.

9. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of possessing a firearm without licence to do so.

10. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 21 April 2014. That is to take into account pre-sentence custody.

11. That sentence be suspended for a period of two years from 21 July 2014.

12. Brenden Joseph Gibbs be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition that he be under supervision of the Director‑General, or her delegate, for two years, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him, determines, and obey all reasonable directions of that person, especially as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling, mental health treatment and counselling, and to undertake such educational or vocational courses as he may be directed to take by the person delegated to supervise him; and

(b) to submit to urinalysis when reasonably required by the person delegated to supervise him.

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.