R v Carpenter - [2018] ACTSC 356

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Carpenter
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 356
Hearing Date:	26 October 2018
DecisionDate:	31 October 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [18]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery by way of joint commission – plea of guilty – plea at late stage – involvement significantly less than co-offender
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 45A
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kylie Carpenter (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J de Bruin (Crown) Ms K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Alliance Legal Services (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 42 of 2018

BURNS J:

Kylie Carpenter, on 17 October 2018 you pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated robbery by way of joint commission pursuant to ss 310 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2017/10656). At the time, the matter was listed for trial to commence on 22 October 2018. As such, the plea came at a very late stage although I accept that it was a result of some negotiations between the parties. I will nevertheless accept that it had utilitarian value and I also accept that it demonstrated a degree of remorse on your part. I will reduce by approximately 10 per cent the otherwise appropriate sentence in order to reflect your plea of guilty with respect to the matter.

On 21 September 2017 at about 10.42 am you and your co-offender attended the Anaconda store on Iron Knob Street in Fyshwick. For about 20 minutes both you and your co-offender walked around the store browsing and picking up items including several clothing items. At times you and your co-offender were together, at other times you were in different parts of the store from each other.

You and the co-offender went to the knife section. The co-offender picked up a number of knives including a ‘Tactical’ brand hunting knife. You were unaware that he had picked up any knives until later in the afternoon. You then browsed the store separately from your co offender and you picked up various items.

At about 10.42 am you and your co-offender both walked towards the exit sliding doors at the front of the store. Both of you walked past the cash register without making any attempt to pay for the items that you were carrying. You walked behind your co‑offender. You were carrying clothing and other items in your left hand. Your co‑offender was carrying an Anaconda shopping basket in his right hand and the basket was filled with clothing and other items.

As your co-offender walked past the cash registers he removed his left hand from the left side of his jumper pocket and was carrying a knife. The co-offender had taken the knife from the store. The acting store manager was standing at the cash registers at the front of the store near the exit sliding doors. Your co-offender pointed the knife at the acting store…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Carpenter [2018] ACTSC 356
Case: [2018] ACTSC 356
Decision Date: 31 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Carpenter involved the respondent, who entered a plea of guilty to charges of aggravated robbery by way of joint commission. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent was one of two individuals who participated in the robbery, which involved the use of a knife and resulted in significant harm to the victim. The respondent's level of involvement was significantly less than that of the co-offender, who was the primary actor in the crime.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, given the late stage at which the plea of guilty was entered. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing in aggravated robbery cases, the degree of the respondent's culpability, and the circumstances surrounding the plea. It was also necessary to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing.

The court, in delivering its judgment, recognised the respondent's significantly lesser role in the commission of the crime compared to the co-offender. It took into account the late stage of the plea, which had implications for the preparation of sentencing submissions and the impact on the administration of justice. The court ultimately determined that the respondent's culpability warranted a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the offence and the respondent's lesser involvement. The court imposed a sentence that was commensurate with these considerations, ensuring that it adhered to the principles of proportionality and justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]

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.