R v Carpenter
Case
•
[2022] ACTSC 6
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Carpenter [2022] ACTSC 6
[2022] ACTSC 6
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Causation
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Rehabilitation
-
Restorative Justice
-
Sentencing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Carpenter [2022] ACTSC 6
Most Recent Citation
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hyatt [2025] ACTSC 103
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Police v Margaret Smith (a pseudonym)
[2025] ACTMC 7
Police v Ammoun
[2023] ACTMC 9
Sayer-Jones v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 73
Cases Cited
56
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31
Tracey v The Queen
[2020] ACTCA 51