R v Chevalier - [2018] ACTSC 236

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chevalier
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 236
Hearing Date:	22 February 2018
DecisionDate:	8 March 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [45] - [53]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – range of offences – aggravated robbery – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – inflicting actual bodily harm – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – found guilty by jury after trial – findings of fact – joint enterprise – objective seriousness – second series of offences – attempted burglary – recklessly threatening to kill – possession of a knife – plea of guilty – conditional liberty – subjective features
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68E
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Manoa Satala Chevalier (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms J Campbell (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 10 of 2017; SCC 11 of 2017; SCC 4 of 2018; SCC 5 of 2018

Burns J

Manoa Chevalier, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to a range of offences. First, there are those charges found on Supreme Court file SCC 10 of 2017 comprising one charge of aggravated robbery (CC2016/11675), one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2016/11676), one charge of inflicting actual bodily harm (XO2017/31043) and one charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm (XO2017/31045).

You were found guilty of these charges by a jury after trial on 22 November 2017. All of these offences occurred on 26 September 2016.

With regard to the offence of aggravated robbery, I am satisfied there were two circumstances of statutory aggravation demonstrated by the evidence. You were in company and you were also armed with an offensive weapon being a knife. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and/or 2500 penalty units.

The maximum penalties for the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and inflicting actual bodily harm are five years' imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The second series of offences which are before me for sentence are found on Supreme Court file SCC 4 of 2018 and comprise one offence of attempted burglary (CC17/11214) and one offence of recklessly threatening to kill (CC17/11215). In addition, there is a further charge of possession of a knife (CC17/11212) which was transferred to this Court from the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 68E of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). All of these offences occurred on 10 October 2017.

The maximum penalty for the offence of attempted burglary is 14 years’ imprisonment and/or 1400 penalty units. The maximum penalty for the offence of recklessly threatening to kill is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty of possession of a knife in a public place is six months’ imprisonment or 10 penalty units.

Offences of 26 September 2016

The following is a summary of my findings of…

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 [2018] ACTSC 236
Case: [2018] ACTSC 236
Decision Date: 8 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chevalier, was charged with and found guilty of a range of serious offences following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The crimes included aggravated robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, inflicting actual bodily harm, and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. Chevalier was also charged with attempted burglary, recklessly threatening to kill, and possession of a knife. He entered a plea of guilty to the latter charges. The case was heard by Justice [Judge’s Name] who was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account both the objective seriousness of the offences and the subjective features of Chevalier’s background and personal circumstances.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in cases involving multiple offences committed as part of a joint enterprise, the relevance of the appellant’s plea of guilty to certain charges, and the extent to which the court should consider the subjective features of Chevalier’s background in the sentencing process. The court also had to determine the appropriate sentence for the second series of offences to which Chevalier pleaded guilty, considering the conditional liberty that had already been granted.

Justice [Judge’s Name] examined the principle that the overall sentence must reflect the cumulative seriousness of the offences. The court noted that while Chevalier’s plea of guilty to some charges could be a mitigating factor, it also considered the objective seriousness of the crimes, particularly the violence involved and the impact on the victims. The court found that Chevalier’s background and personal circumstances, including his age and potential for rehabilitation, were relevant to the sentencing decision. After careful consideration, the court determined the appropriate sentences for each offence, taking into account both the objective and subjective factors. The final orders were detailed in paragraphs [45] to [53] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [45] - [53]

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.