R v Bright - [2017] ACTSC 328

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Bright
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 328
Hearing Date:	26 October 2017
DecisionDate:	27 October 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – pleas of guilty – breach of Good Behaviour Orders – resentence – aggravated burglary – drive motor vehicle without consent – joint commission theft – take motor vehicle without authority – unlawful possession of stolen property – drive while disqualified – drive while licence suspended by law – specific deterrence – general deterrence – rehabilitation a significant factor in sentencing – totality of sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 108, 110 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312, 318(1), 318(2), 324
Cases Cited:	R v Booth [2017] ACTSC 191 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Warren Douglas Bright (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel J De Bruin (Crown) H Russell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 191 of 2017 SCC 269 of 2017 SCC 270 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Warren Douglas Bright, has pleaded guilty to offences arising out of the burglary of a supermarket, on 21 May 2017, a burglary of a secure carpark on 23 May 2017 and the possession of stolen goods on 26 May 2017.

The offences involved contraventions of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), their maximum penalties are set out in the table below:

Date

Count

Charge No.

Charge

Offence Provision

Maximum Penalty

21 May 2017

1

CC2017/7255

Aggravated burglary

Criminal Code s 312

20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $300,000 or both

2

CC2017/7256

Ride motor vehicle without consent

Criminal Code s 318(2)

Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both

3

CC2017/7806

Theft

Criminal Code s 308

10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000 or both

23 May 2017

4

CC2017/5911

Aggravated burglary

Criminal Code s 312

20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $300,000 or both

5

CC2017/5910

Take motor vehicle without consent

Criminal Code s 318(1)

Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both

6

CC2017/10758

Ride motor vehicle without consent

Criminal Code s 318(2)

Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both

26 May 2017

7

CC2017/7486

Unlawful possession of stolen property

Criminal Code s 324

Six months’ imprisonment, a fine of $7500 or both

The offender was at conditional liberty at the time of the offending conduct stemming from a number of Good Behaviour Orders (‘GBO’). All but the first of these GBOs were entered on 29 June 2015. The first GBO, to which I refer below, was entered on 7 November 2016 as part of a suspended sentence in relation to an offence committed on 4 September 2016. The commission of that offence by the offender was a breach of the earlier GBOs. That then resulted in either a resentence on the earlier sentences imposed on 29 June 2015…

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 Bright

Details

AGLC: R v Bright [2017] ACTSC 328
Case: [2017] ACTSC 328
Decision Date: 27 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bright, the defendant was convicted for various offences including aggravated burglary, driving a motor vehicle without consent, joint commission theft, taking a motor vehicle without authority, unlawful possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified and with a suspended licence. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the lower court following the defendant's guilty pleas. The Supreme Court of the state was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence and determining whether a resentencing was warranted.

The primary legal issues before the court were the adequacy of the sentence imposed in light of the defendant's pleas and the need to achieve specific deterrence, general deterrence, and to consider rehabilitation as a significant factor in sentencing. The court had to balance these considerations with the need to ensure that the totality of the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the totality of the defendant's offending. It considered the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's guilty pleas and prospects for rehabilitation, but also emphasised the need for both specific and general deterrence. After a thorough review, the court determined that a resentencing was necessary to ensure the sentence met the statutory objectives. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the case was remitted for resentencing.

The final orders included the remand of the case to the lower court for resentencing, with explicit instructions to consider the totality of the defendant's offending, the principles of specific and general deterrence, and the importance of rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence. The court highlighted that the resentencing should ensure the sentence achieved the necessary balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [39]

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.

Date	Count	Charge No.	Charge	Offence Provision	Maximum Penalty
21 May 2017	1	CC2017/7255	Aggravated burglary	Criminal Code s 312	20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $300,000 or both
2	CC2017/7256	Ride motor vehicle without consent	Criminal Code s 318(2)	Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both
3	CC2017/7806	Theft	Criminal Code s 308	10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000 or both
23 May 2017	4	CC2017/5911	Aggravated burglary	Criminal Code s 312	20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $300,000 or both
5	CC2017/5910	Take motor vehicle without consent	Criminal Code s 318(1)	Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both
6	CC2017/10758	Ride motor vehicle without consent	Criminal Code s 318(2)	Five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both
26 May 2017	7	CC2017/7486	Unlawful possession of stolen property	Criminal Code s 324	Six months’ imprisonment, a fine of $7500 or both