R v Bresnan - [2017] ACTSC 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bresnan
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 18
Hearing Date:	30 January 2017
DecisionDate:	30 January 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [16]-[18]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Particular Offences – property offences – aggravated robbery – offensive weapon –– pleas of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – terms of imprisonment imposed.
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ricky Bresnan (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) David Butler Lawyer (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 243 of 2016

BURNS J:

Ricky Bresnan, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery. Both of these offences occurred on 18 September 2016 and each involves an aggravated robbery of the BWS store in Bonner in the Australia Capital Territory.

On each occasion you stole alcohol and had an offensive weapon with you. On the first occasion that offensive weapon was a house brick or a paver. It appears to me that there was minimal real risk to the employee of the BWS store who tried to intervene after you had left the store without paying for the alcohol. I would place that offence in the low range of offences of this nature.

On the second occasion, the offensive weapon which you used was a knife. A knife is an implement which is capable of inflicting significant injury and if events had escalated, it is possible that injury may have been occasioned, again to the employee of the BWS store who sought to intervene as you were leaving with the alcohol not having paid for it. I would place that in the low to mid range of offences of that nature.

It was submitted on behalf of the Crown that that offence was aggravated in two ways. Firstly, that you had demonstrated a degree of premeditation by changing your clothes before the second offence and after committing the first offence. With respect to the Crown’s submission in that regard, I do not accept that to be the case. I do not see how a simple change of clothing, such as is revealed by the evidence, can be said to be evidence of premeditation. There was, as I understand it, no attempt to hide your face or anything of that nature.

The second area in which the Crown says there was a degree of premeditation revealed is in the obtaining of the knife. In the absence of any other reason which has been put before me for your possession of the knife at that time, I would have to accept that it has been established by the Crown that that was an element of aggravation. It appears therefore that there was a minimal degree of planning involved in respect of that matter and I take that into account when I pass sentence.

You were arrested on 18 September 2016 and, as I understand it,…

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 Bresnan

Details

AGLC: R v Bresnan [2017] ACTSC 18
Case: [2017] ACTSC 18
Decision Date: 30 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal case against the defendant, Bresnan, who pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery, where an offensive weapon was used. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The defendant, having admitted to his guilt, faced the imposition of a sentence for his crime.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature of the offence, his plea of guilty, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider the statutory provisions relevant to aggravated robbery with the use of an offensive weapon.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's guilty plea, and the mitigating factors such as his prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that while the offence was serious, the defendant's guilty plea and his prospects for rehabilitation were mitigating factors that needed to be weighed. After considering all the relevant factors, the court determined that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific terms outlined in the judgment.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a specified term, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the use of an offensive weapon, and the mitigating factors presented. The exact terms of the imprisonment were detailed in the judgment, providing clarity on the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]-[18]

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.