R v Chevalier - [2021] ACTSC 14

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chevalier
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 14
Hearing Date:	3 February 2021
DecisionDate:	3 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery by joint commission – in custody at the time of the offence – low end of mid range objective seriousness – medium risk of reoffending – risk of deportation – significant criminal history – illicit substance abuse – mental health diagnosis – sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), s 72 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 45A Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501(3A)
Cases Cited:	Cranfield v Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 R v Denniss [2021] ACTSC 15
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Manoa Chevalier (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 87 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Manoa Chevalier, has pleaded guilty to one count of joint commission aggravated robbery contrary to ss 310 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.

His co-offender, Tian-Jarrah Denniss, is being dealt with at the same time: see R v Denniss [2021] ACTSC 15. Mr Denniss is charged with the same offence, being joint commission aggravated robbery, as well as well as a separate arson offence that does not involve Mr Chevalier.

Facts

The facts in relation to the aggravated robbery offence relevant to both offenders are agreed and are, in summary, as follows.

On 15 December 2018 the offender, the co-offender and the victim were housed in Remand Unit 1 within the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). Mr Chevalier was housed in cell 5, Mr Denniss in cell 18 and the victim in cell 15.

At around 6:06pm the offenders entered cell 15 through a partially opened door and found the victim seated and facing away from the entrance of the cell. On entering, Mr Denniss said to the victim “give me all your smokes”. The victim replied “what the fuck, no I’m not giving you all my smokes”. Mr Denniss then commenced punching and kicking the victim in the back of the head and neck. While this occurred, Mr Chevalier closed the door of the cell and said “I’ll be lookout”.

In an attempt to get away from Mr Denniss, the victim ended up on his computer desk before he jumped onto the bed next to the desk. The victim began calling out for the guards and attempted to block the punches and kicks coming from Mr Denniss to defend himself. Mr Chevalier then approached the victim and started punching and kicking the victim’s head.

The victim began shouting “get off” and “piss off” and ended up on the floor after Mr Denniss pulled the mattress away from the bed frame. One…

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 Chevalier

Details

AGLC: R v Chevalier [2021] ACTSC 14
Case: [2021] ACTSC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chevalier was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Manoa Chevalier pleaded guilty to one count of joint commission aggravated robbery, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $400,000, or both. The case was heard by Mossop J on 3 February 2021, and the decision was delivered on the same day.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the offence, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the need for deterrence, punishment, and protection of the community. The court also had to consider the offender's significant criminal history, mental health diagnosis, and the risk of deportation.

Mossop J, in delivering the decision, found that the offending was at the low end of the mid-range of objective seriousness. The offender's subjective circumstances, including his significant criminal history, mental health issues, and illicit substance abuse, were also taken into account. The court considered that the predominant sentencing considerations were deterrence, punishment, and protection of the community, including through the deterrence of other prisoners. The court determined that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 20 months.

The final orders of the Court were that the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years, commencing on 14 November 2024 and ending on 13 November 2027. The non-parole period commences on 14 December 2016 and ends on 13 August 2023. The sentence is cumulative upon the existing sentences unless a direction is made to the contrary.

Orders