R v CK - [2015] ACTSC 180

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CK
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 180
Hearing Date:	14 May 2015
DecisionDate:	14 May 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [18] to [20] below.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence for large number of dishonesty offences deferred to allow rehabilitation – rehabilitation apparently successful – offender sentenced in accordance with indication given in 2014 – remaining sentence suspended subject to good behaviour order.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) CK (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 404 of 2011; SCC 169 of 2013; SCC 210 of 2013; SCC 91 of 2014; SCC 211 of 2013

On 19 May 2014 I deferred sentencing CK, on pleas of guilty, for a large number of dishonesty offences, being:

(a)one burglary;
(b)15 offences of obtaining property by deception;
(c)one offence of being knowingly concerned in obtaining property by deception; and
(d)one offence of attempting to ride in a motor vehicle dishonestly and without consent.

There is also an offence of giving a false name to police, which is to be taken into account in sentencing CK for one of the offences of obtaining property by deception.

Sentencing was deferred until today to give CK an opportunity to address the causes of his offending behaviour, specifically by undertaking residential rehabilitation aimed at his illicit drug use. An extract from my May 2014 remarks (R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188) is attached to these remarks, so I do not intend to go into the same detail about the offences and CK’s circumstances today.

The burglary committed on 8 May 2013 involved CK opening a window and removing a flyscreen to gain entry to a domestic residence. The property was not damaged, and nothing was stolen, but CK drank some lemonade he found in the pantry, and in due course the DNA left on the lemonade bottle identified him as the offender.

The deception offences were committed on 22 May 2013. The Commonwealth Bank debit card was stolen during a burglary. CK came into possession of the debit card and in the course of the day, used or took part in using the card to make purchases to a total value of $1,181.12, mainly involving the purchase of packets of cigarettes.

The offence of attempting to ride in a motor vehicle without consent was committed on 28 May 2013. The car keys had been stolen during a burglary, and early the next morning CK and another man tried to remove the vehicle using the stolen keys, but it failed to start (presumably because the vehicle’s owners had removed its fuses). Fingerprints were found on the vehicle which linked CK to the attempt.

CK was arrested on 28 May 2013 and remanded…

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 CK

Details

AGLC: R v CK [2015] ACTSC 180
Case: [2015] ACTSC 180
Decision Date: 14 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v CK, the defendant was brought before the Court to face a significant number of dishonesty offences. The defendant had previously been sentenced for these offences in 2014, with the sentence deferred to allow for rehabilitation. The defendant's rehabilitation appeared to have been successful, and the court was tasked with finalising the sentencing in line with the indications provided in the 2014 proceedings. The defendant was to be sentenced in accordance with the terms previously outlined, with the remaining sentence suspended subject to a good behaviour order.

The central legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant in light of the successful rehabilitation and the previous indication of the sentence in 2014. The court had to consider the principles of justice, deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality in crafting its decision. It was also necessary for the court to ensure that the sentence met the requirements of the good behaviour order and complied with any relevant statutory provisions.

The court's reasoning focused on the defendant's successful rehabilitation and the prior indication of sentence in 2014. Given that the defendant had demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation and had shown no signs of recidivism, the court determined that it was appropriate to proceed with the sentencing as previously indicated. The court found that the sentence should reflect the principles of justice and rehabilitation, while also serving as a deterrent. In light of these considerations, the court decided to suspend the remaining sentence, subject to the defendant complying with a good behaviour order. This outcome was seen as the most appropriate means of ensuring that justice was served while also providing the defendant with an opportunity to continue on the path of rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the sentencing of the defendant in accordance with the 2014 indication, with the remaining sentence suspended. The defendant was to be subject to a good behaviour order for a specified period. These orders were made to ensure that the sentence reflected the principles of justice and rehabilitation, while also providing a means of deterrence and compliance with statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18] to [20] below.

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.