R v CC - [2014] ACTSC 288

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CC
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 288
Hearing Date(s):	5 September 2014
DecisionDate:	10 September 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. For the burglary at Harrison on 8 August 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2013, to take into account pre-sentence custody. 2. For the theft of property from those premises, CC be sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for that burglary. 3. For the burglary at Torrens on 10 August 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 July 2013. That is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the burglary at Harrison. 4. For the theft of property from those premises at Torrens, CC be sentenced to five months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 September 2013. That is to be cumulative as to one month on the burglary. 5. For the damage to the window of those premises, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 July 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary at those premises. 6. For the aggravated burglary at the shop at Cook on 22 December 2009, CC be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2013. That is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft of property at Torrens. 7. For the theft of property from that shop, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the aggravated burglary. 8. For the burglary at Nicholls on 28 February 2010, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2014. That is to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Cook. 9. For the damage property, being the two flyscreens and window in the premises at Nicholls, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary of those premises. 10. For the burglary at Macarthur between 11 and 16 July 2010, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence of the burglary at Nicholls. 11. For the theft of property from that premises, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. 12. For the assault at Macquarie on 15 December 2009, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be wholly cumulative on the sentence for the burglary at Macarthur. 13. For the damage to the fence and gatepost at the house at Macquarie…

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 CC

Details

AGLC: R v CC [2014] ACTSC 288
Case: [2014] ACTSC 288
Decision Date: 10 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence brought by the respondent, CC, who was convicted of various criminal offences including burglaries, thefts, property damage, and assault. The appeal pertained to the appropriateness of the sentences imposed by the primary judge for these offences. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were excessive or manifestly inadequate, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the nature of the offences committed.

In addressing the appeal, the court examined the sentences imposed by the primary judge and considered whether they were within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences in question. The court noted that the primary judge had taken into account various factors, including the cumulative nature of the offences, the respondent’s criminal history, and the impact of the offences on the victims. The court also considered the principles of totality, which require that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences should not be excessive, and the principle of proportionality, which requires that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

After reviewing the sentences, the court determined that the primary judge had appropriately considered the relevant principles and factors in determining the sentences. The court found that the sentences imposed were not excessive or manifestly inadequate and therefore dismissed the appeal. The court confirmed the sentences as imposed by the primary judge, with certain adjustments to the commencement dates of the sentences to ensure that they were cumulative as appropriate.

The court’s final orders confirmed the sentences imposed by the primary judge, with specific directions as to the commencement dates of the sentences and the imposition of an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations. The sentences were to commence on various dates between May 2013 and November 2015, with certain sentences to be cumulative or concurrent as appropriate. The court also ordered that the sentence be suspended from September 2014 for a period of twelve months, subject to certain conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For the burglary at Harrison on 8 August 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2013, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

2. For the theft of property from those premises, CC be sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 May 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for that burglary.

3. For the burglary at Torrens on 10 August 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 July 2013. That is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the burglary at Harrison.

4. For the theft of property from those premises at Torrens, CC be sentenced to five months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 September 2013. That is to be cumulative as to one month on the burglary.

5. For the damage to the window of those premises, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 July 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary at those premises.

6. For the aggravated burglary at the shop at Cook on 22 December 2009, CC be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2013. That is to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence for the theft of property at Torrens.

7. For the theft of property from that shop, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2013. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the aggravated burglary.

8. For the burglary at Nicholls on 28 February 2010, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2014. That is to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Cook.

9. For the damage property, being the two flyscreens and window in the premises at Nicholls, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary of those premises.

10. For the burglary at Macarthur between 11 and 16 July 2010, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence of the burglary at Nicholls.

11. For the theft of property from that premises, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary.

12. For the assault at Macquarie on 15 December 2009, CC be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 June 2014. That is to be wholly cumulative on the sentence for the burglary at Macarthur.

13. For the damage to the fence and gatepost at the house at Macquarie on 15 December 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 November 2015. That is to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the assault on that day.

14. For the damage to the door, chairs and pot at the house at Macquarie on 15 December 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 January 2015.

15. For the forcible entry onto the premises at Macquarie on 15 December 2009, CC be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2015. That is to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the damage to the door, chairs and pot.

16. For the breach of bail on 1 February 2010, CC be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 July 2015. That is to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the forcible entry at Macquarie.

17. The sentence be suspended from 10 September 2014 for twelve months.

18. CC be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations, under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), for a period of twelve months from 10 September 2014, with the following condition:

(a) a probation condition that he be on probation subject to the supervise of the Director-General or her delegate for a period of twelve months from 10 September 2014 and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, especially as to alcohol and drug counselling and mental health issues.

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.