R v Celeski - [2020] ACTSC 310

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Celeski
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 310
Hearing Date:	29 September 2020
DecisionDate:	29 September 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [27]–[41]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted theft – burglary – damaging property – dishonestly driving motor vehicle – theft – trespass – two counts obstructing territory official – unauthorised possession ammunition – two counts possession of drug of dependence – pleas of guilty – consideration of mental impairment on moral culpability – good prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311, 318(2), 361(1), 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 169 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 249(1) Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Celeski (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren (Crown) P Bevan (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Peter Bevan Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 78 of 2016; SCC 79 of 2016; SCC 80 of 2016; SCC 81 of 2016

BURNS J:

David Celeski, you have entered pleas of guilty for the following offences:

· an offence of attempted theft which occurred on 19 November 2015;

· an offence of damaging property which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of burglary which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of theft which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of trespass which occurred on 19 November 2015;

· an offence of obstructing a Territory official which occurred on 19 November 2015;

· an offence of unlawful possession of ammunition which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of obstructing a Territory official which occurred on 22 January 2016;

· an offence of possession of a drug of dependence which occurred on 22 January 2016; and

· a further offence of possession of a drug of dependence which also occurred on 22 January 2016.

In sentencing you for the offence of attempted theft which occurred on

19 November 2015, you ask that I take into account an additional offence of damaging property which also occurred on 19 November 2015. This additional offence is contained on a

List of Additional Offences dated 28 September 2020 which has been signed by you and by a delegate of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The offence of attempted theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

(the Criminal Code), carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both. The offence of theft carries the same maximum penalty.

The offence of damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both. The offence of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle…

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 Celeski

Details

AGLC: R v Celeski [2020] ACTSC 310
Case: [2020] ACTSC 310
Decision Date: 29 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Celeski involved the appellant, Mr. Celeski, and the Crown. The dispute centred on multiple criminal charges, including attempted theft, burglary, damaging property, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle, theft, trespassing, obstructing a territory official, and unauthorised possession of ammunition and drugs. The case was heard in a court of general criminal jurisdiction, and Mr. Celeski had entered pleas of guilty to all charges. The legal issues that the court needed to address were the appropriate sentencing principles and the extent to which Mr. Celeski's mental impairment should be considered in assessing his moral culpability. Additionally, the court needed to consider Mr. Celeski's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the relevance of Mr. Celeski's mental impairment in assessing his moral culpability. It also considered the precedents set by the High Court in cases such as R v Edwards and R v Falconer, which emphasised the importance of understanding the offender's capacity for moral culpability in the sentencing process. The court was required to balance the need for punishment with the prospects of rehabilitation, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences and Mr. Celeski's background. The court noted that Mr. Celeski had a history of mental health issues, which had been a contributing factor to his criminal behaviour. However, it also acknowledged that Mr. Celeski had shown a willingness to address his mental health issues and had good prospects for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that while Mr. Celeski's mental impairment was a significant factor in his offending, it did not absolve him of moral culpability. The court considered the totality of Mr. Celeski's offending and his prospects for rehabilitation. It determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that provided a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment, followed by a period of community correction, during which Mr. Celeski would be required to address his mental health issues and participate in rehabilitation programs. This approach aimed to address the underlying causes of Mr. Celeski's offending while also ensuring public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [27]–[41]

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.