R v CK - [2014] ACTSC 188

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CK
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 188
Hearing Date:	19 May 2014
DecisionDate:	19 May 2014
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [24], [26], [27] and [34]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentencing for one burglary, 16 obtain property by deception offences, and one attempted ride in motor vehicle dishonestly and without consent – young offender – disadvantaged background – shocking criminal history – offences committed while subject to good behaviour order – alcohol and drug abuse since adolescence – residential rehabilitation in Karralika Therapeutic Community – three months completed so far – sentence deferred for 12 months to allow offender to address matters contributing to his criminal behaviours before being sentenced.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 211 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 118, 27, 27(1)(c) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 311, 318, 326
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) CK (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Begley (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 404 of 2011; SCC 169 of 2013; SCC 210 of 2013; SCC 91 of 2014; SCC 211 of 2013
Publication Restriction:	Offender’s name

CK has pleaded guilty to a large number of dishonesty offences for which I am to deal with him today. There are:

(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.

All the offences so far mentioned were committed in breach of a 12-month good behaviour order that I imposed in December 2012 when I sentenced CK for six counts of burglary and five of theft committed as a juvenile. However, that good behaviour order applied to only one of the burglary sentences, of which the final one month was suspended, CK having already served the remainder of the sentences.

Today’s offences arise under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) as follows:

(a)burglary arises under section 311 of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty including 14 years imprisonment;
(b)obtaining property by deception arises under s 326 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment;
(c)riding in a motor vehicle dishonestly and without consent arises under s 318 of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment;
(d)the scheduled offence of giving a false name to police is created by s 211 of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $500.

The burglary was committed on 8 May 2013 in Lyons. CK opened a window and removed a flyscreen to gain entry to a…

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 [2014] ACTSC 188
Case: [2014] ACTSC 188
Decision Date: 19 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, identified as CK, appeared before the court to face sentencing for one count of burglary, 16 counts of obtaining property by deception, and one count of attempted ride in a motor vehicle dishonestly and without consent. The case was presided over by a magistrate in the Local Court of New South Wales. The defendant, a young man with a troubled background, has a history of criminal activity, alcohol and drug abuse since adolescence, and has been subject to a good behaviour order at the time of the offences. Despite these challenges, CK has shown some positive steps towards rehabilitation by completing three months in the Karralika Therapeutic Community, a residential rehabilitation program.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for CK, taking into account his age, disadvantaged background, extensive criminal history, ongoing substance abuse issues, and recent engagement in a rehabilitation program. The key legal issues revolved around balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of proportionality and the specific circumstances of each offence.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the severity of CK's criminal behaviour and the significant harm caused to victims. However, the court also recognised the importance of providing CK with an opportunity to address the underlying issues contributing to his criminal conduct. Consequently, the court deferred sentencing for 12 months to allow CK to continue with his rehabilitation efforts in the Karralika Therapeutic Community. During this period, CK is expected to address his substance abuse issues and engage in other programs aimed at reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The court emphasised that a final decision on sentencing would be made after assessing CK's progress and overall compliance with the terms of the order.

The court's orders included deferring sentencing for 12 months, requiring CK to complete the Karralika Therapeutic Community program, and prohibiting him from committing any further offences. Additionally, the court mandated that CK participate in any other rehabilitation or treatment programs deemed necessary by the court. The final sentencing hearing will take place after the 12-month period, allowing the court to assess CK's progress and determine an appropriate sentence that balances the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24], [26], [27] and [34]

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.