2 September 2021, 3 November 2021 and 31 January 2022
DecisionDate:
31 January 2022
Before:
Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:
See [119]
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – delay – rehabilitation – engagement in restorative justice – consideration of suspended sentence – consideration of Intensive Correction Order – suspended sentence imposed
Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Sentencing Bench Book (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2001)
Parties:
The Queen (Crown)
Kylie Ann Carpenter (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel
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 Carpenter
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Carpenter [2022] ACTSC 6
Case
[2022] ACTSC 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
R v Carpenter was a criminal case heard by Loukas-Karlsson J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The offender, Kylie Ann Carpenter, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary contrary to section 311(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years, a fine of $224,000, or both. The case involved a burglary that occurred in the early hours of 9 July 2019 at a residence in Franklin. The victim, Caroline Pietersen, was overseas at the time, and had asked a friend to look after her residence. The burglar entered the residence by damaging the garage door, and various items including jewellery and accessories were stolen. A fingerprint examination was later conducted on suitable surfaces in the areas of the residence that appeared to have been searched. Fingerprints were located and developed on a Hunter Lab box, with the offender's fingerprints found on the box itself and the lid to the box.
The court considered several legal issues in the case, including the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's subjective circumstances, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court found that the objective seriousness of the offence was lower than the mid-range, taking into account that no one was home at the time of the offence, and the prosecution had not asserted or established that any items were stolen by the offender or that the offender committed any of the damage. The court also took into account the offender's subjective circumstances, including her dysfunctional childhood, history of drug and alcohol abuse, and participation in restorative justice. The court further considered the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation, engagement in restorative justice, and the impact of the delay in charging her with the offence.
In light of the offender's rehabilitation and engagement in restorative justice, the court imposed a wholly suspended sentence of 16 months' imprisonment, reduced from 20 months, to commence on 31 January 2022 and expiring on 30 May 2023. The sentence of imprisonment is wholly suspended on condition that the offender enter a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 2 years commencing on 31 January 2022 and concluding on 30 January 2024, with the core conditions: s 86 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). The Good Behaviour Order is to include an additional condition that the offender is required to be under the supervision of the Director-General of ACT Corrective Services, only for the period deemed necessary by the Director-General.