R v Charles - [2020] ACTSC 39

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Charles
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 39
Hearing Date(s):	7 February 2020
DecisionDate:	7 February 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	25 months’ imprisonment from 29 October 2019 to 28 November 2021, including a 12 month Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. On successful completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, the offender is to enter into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the custodial part. See [29]-[32].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drug and alcohol treatment order – aggravated burglary - riding in a motor vehicle without consent
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s 26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12A(2), 17, 33, 80W, 80Y, 80Z, 80ZA Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 312, 318(2), 326
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27; 249 CLR 571 R v Parker [2019] ACTSC 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Delphine Maree Charles (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 343 of 2019

Walker AJ (ex tempore)

Summary of charges

Ms Charles is charged with offences occurring on three separate occasions:

· riding in a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 9915/19), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) and obtaining property by deception (CAN 9921/19) contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code on 30 June 2019;

· aggravated burglary with intent to cause harm (CAN 8801/19), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code and two counts of common assault (CAN 8802/19 and 8803/19) contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 on 10 July 2017; and

· riding in a motor vehicle without consent (CAN 9920/19), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code, on 8 September 2019.

The most serious of these offences is aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment, a fine, or a combination of both. The offence of riding in a motor vehicle without consent carries up to five years' imprisonment or a fine or both. The offence of obtaining property by deception carries up to ten years' imprisonment, a financial penalty, or combination of both.

These matters were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, following the entry of guilty pleas, after receipt of a brief of evidence in the Magistrate's Court. The offence of common assault carries up to two years' imprisonment and is therefore summary only. These charges were transferred for sentence as related charges. Committal was sought for the purpose of assessment of Ms Charles' suitability to serve her sentence on a drug and alcohol treatment order.

Evidence

I have available to me an agreed statement of facts, Ms Charles' prior criminal history and assessment reports as to her suitability for a drug and alcohol treatment order. Namely, the report of Ms Alex Durrant, social worker of the Forensic Mental…

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 Charles

Details

AGLC: R v Charles [2020] ACTSC 39
Case: [2020] ACTSC 39
Decision Date: 7 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Charles, the appellant was convicted for two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of riding in a motor vehicle without consent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was found guilty of breaking into a residential property, stealing items, and causing damage, as well as entering a motor vehicle and driving it without the owner's consent.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the appellant's convictions, the potential for a drug and alcohol treatment order, and the imposition of a good behaviour order. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the appellant's history of substance abuse, and the impact of his actions on the victims.

The court found that the appellant's criminal conduct was serious, involving multiple offences and causing harm to the victims. However, it also acknowledged the appellant's struggle with substance abuse and the potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that a sentence of 25 months' imprisonment, including a 12-month Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, was appropriate. The court also ordered that upon successful completion of the treatment order, the appellant would enter into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the custodial part of the sentence.

The final orders of the court were for the appellant to serve 25 months’ imprisonment from 29 October 2019 to 28 November 2021, with a 12-month Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Upon successful completion of this order, the appellant is to enter into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the custodial part of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

25 months’ imprisonment from 29 October 2019 to 28 November 2021, including a 12 month Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. On successful completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, the offender is to enter into a Good Behaviour Order for the remainder of the custodial part. See [29]-[32].

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.