R v CA - [2016] ACTSC 378

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CA
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 378
Hearing Date:	19 October 2016
DecisionDate:	19 October 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	See [35]–[41]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – breach of good behaviour order –prior similar offences – pleas of guilty – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 33
Cases Cited:	R v CA [2014] ACTSC 332 R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) CA (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McFarland (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 93 of 2016; SCC 94 of 2016; SCC 139 of 2014; SCC 140 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

The offender is to be sentenced for an offence of aggravated burglary (burglary in company) and a related offence of theft committed on 25 July 2015, which placed him in breach of good behaviour orders associated with suspended sentences imposed by the Supreme Court on 28 October 2014 and by the Magistrates Court on 6 November 2014.

The maximum penalty for an offence of aggravated burglary is 20 years' imprisonment and/or a fine. The maximum penalty for an offence of theft is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

In relation to the July 2015 offences, the offender was arrested on 30 November 2015. On 1 December 2015, he was granted bail. On 22 February 2016, he was arrested for failing to appear and refused bail. He has been in custody since that date.

The offender was committed for trial on 3 March 2016. He indicated a plea of guilty at a criminal trial call-over in August 2016, just before the matter received a trial date. The Crown case was strong. In these circumstances, the appropriate discount for the plea of guilty is about 15%. A discount of that level adequately recognises the utilitarian value of the pleas and the remorse that the pleas demonstrate, but in the context of a strong Crown case.

Facts relating to 25 July 2015 offences

At 12.30 am on Saturday, 25 July 2015, the offender and co-offender smashed a rear window of a hair salon (the replacement cost was $2,510) and gained entry. They removed items including cash, scissors, razors, hairspray and make-up (the tools of trade of a hair salon) with a total value of about $7,118. The break-in activated an alarm. The incident was captured on CCTV. A bloodstain was found inside the premises and DNA matched to the offender.

The proprietor of the salon seeks reparation for out-of-pocket expenses, being the payment of an insurance excess. The insurance company seeks reparation for the amount paid in compensation for the break-in.

Objective seriousness

The objective seriousness of the offences is not insignificant, although it is towards the lower end. The aggravating feature (in company) has less significance in the circumstance that no-one was present…

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 CA

Details

AGLC: R v CA [2016] ACTSC 378
Case: [2016] ACTSC 378
Decision Date: 19 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v CA, the respondent pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges, including aggravated burglary, theft, and a breach of a good behaviour order. The respondent had a history of similar offences, which led to the current charges. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice [Name].

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating factors of the crimes committed, the respondent's prior criminal history, and the impact of the breach of the good behaviour order. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the principles of rehabilitation against the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court had to balance these considerations in light of the pleas of guilty entered by the respondent.

Justice [Name] delivered the judgment, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and deter similar offences in the future. Ultimately, the court considered that a custodial sentence was necessary, but also recognised the potential for rehabilitation. After thorough deliberation, the court imposed a sentence that included both imprisonment and community service, with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders, detailed in paragraphs [35] to [41], reflect the court's decision to impose a sentence that balances the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The specific terms of the sentence are outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]–[41]

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.