R v Carberry

Case [2022] ACTSC 208


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Carberry

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 208

Hearing Date:

8 April 2022

DecisionDate:

27 April 2022

Before:

Refshauge AJ

Decision:

1.     Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of damaging property and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 January 2021 and end on 9 April 2023. 

2.      Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of arson and sentenced to 38 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 January 2021 and end on 9 March 2024. 

3.     Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 4 years and 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 March 2023 and end on 9 January 2028. 

4.     A non-parole period of one year and four months be set, to commence on 10 March 2023 and end on 9 July 2024. 

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –Damaging Property – Arson – Aggravated Robbery – Offending While in Custody – Parity – Rehabilitation – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order Application – Application Denied – Imprisonment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) pt 4.4, ss 7, 10, 12A, 31, 33, 46J, 63, 65, 72

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 44, 310B, 312, 403, 404

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 4

Cases Cited:

Beniamini v Stormon [2014] ACTSC 2

Brown v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 132

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Cajina v The Queen [2009] ACTCA 2; 3 ACTLR 79

Delaney v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 150; 230 A Crim R 581

Elson v Ayton [2010] ACTSC 70

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 27; 244 CLR 462

Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Horan v O'Brien [2021] ACTSC 323

KR v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 32

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

McDowall v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 29

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25

Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37
R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71

R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734

R v Bourchas [2002] NSWCCA 373

R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20

R v Cotter [2003] NSWCCA 275

R v Cuthbert (1967) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 272

R v Davis [2015] ACTSC 101

R v Deng [2022] ACTSC 143

R v DF (No 2) [2012] ACTSC 3

R v Griggs [1999] ACTSC 22

R v Halden (1983) 9 A Crim R 30

R v Hall (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 22

R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346

R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214

R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7

R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256

R v Massey [2022] ACTSC 3

R v NF [2018] ACTSC 165

R v O’Donnell [2009] NSWSC…

Continue reading R v Carberry

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Carberry [2022] ACTSC 208
Case
[2022] ACTSC 208
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Keith Ernest Frank Carberry, was brought before the court on charges of damaging property, arson, and aggravated robbery, all of which were committed while the accused was in custody. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for these serious offences, as well as considering an application for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court had to weigh various factors, including the gravity of the crimes, the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, and the principle of parity in sentencing. Given the severity of the offences and the accused's history, the court found that imprisonment was the appropriate course of action, denying the application for a treatment order.

The legal issues the court had to address included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, the need to ensure parity between the sentences for each offence, and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court had to consider the maximum penalties for each offence, the circumstances of the crimes, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. Additionally, the court needed to consider the application for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, assessing whether such an order would be beneficial for the accused's rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the appropriate sentences for the offences of damaging property, arson, and aggravated robbery were 27 months, 38 months, and 4 years and 10 months imprisonment, respectively. The court determined that the non-parole period should be one year and four months, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence. The court denied the application for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, finding that the accused's history and the nature of the offences did not warrant such an order at that time. The court emphasised the importance of the accused addressing any underlying issues related to drug and alcohol abuse through other means, such as rehabilitation programs within the prison system.

The court ordered that Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of damaging property and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, of arson and sentenced to 38 months imprisonment, and of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 4 years and 10 months imprisonment. The court also set a non-parole period of one year and four months, to commence on 10 March 2023 and end on 9 July 2024. The court denied the application for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of damaging property and sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 January 2021 and end on 9 April 2023.

2. Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of arson and sentenced to 38 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 January 2021 and end on 9 March 2024.

3. Keith Ernest Frank Carberry be convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 4 years and 10 months imprisonment, to commence on 10 March 2023 and end on 9 January 2028.

4. A non-parole period of one year and four months be set, to commence on 10 March 2023 and end on 9 July 2024.

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.