R v Clifton

[2016] ACTSC 326

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Clifton

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 326

Hearing Dates:

22 July; 19 October 2016

DecisionDates:

22 July; 19 October 2016

ReasonsDate:

19 October 2016

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

For attempted arson, sentenced to a 16-month intensive correction order subject to conditions, for the damage property offence, sentenced to a six-month good behaviour order subject to conditions, and for the drink-driving offence, fined $750 and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted arson – Molotov cocktails – damage property – drink‑driving – provisional license holder – special driver – pleas of guilty – parity with co-offender – intensive correction order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 13, 33, 35, 77, 78

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 403, 404,

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 19

Cases Cited:

R v Miles [2016] ACTSC 83

R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Robert John Clifton (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K McCann (Crown)

Mr P Edmonds (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 88 of 2016; SCC 89 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

Offences

1. The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences committed on 2 February 2016:

(a)Attempted arson contrary to ss 44 and 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (maximum penalty 15 years' imprisonment);

(b)Damage property contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 10 years' imprisonment); and

(c)Drive with level 2 prescribed concentration of alcohol as a repeat offender contrary to s 19(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) (maximum penalty $1,500 and disqualification).

1. In relation to offences (a) and (b), following preparation of the brief of evidence, the offender entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court at the fourth mention.  In relation to offence (c), the plea was entered at an earlier time. 

1. The prosecution case was strong. However, the pleas have a high utilitarian value. For offences (a) and (b) the appropriate s 35 discount is 20–25%. For offence (c) it is 25%.

Facts

1. The offender and Mr Craven, the victim, had been friends until about a month prior to the offence, when there was a falling out because the offender discovered that Mr Craven had been involved in a relationship with the offender's former partner.  This made the offender very angry and resentful towards the victim.

1. On the evening of 2 February 2016, the offender went to premises where the co‑offender, Mr King, was drinking with a friend.  The offender asked Mr King to help him and Mr King agreed to do so.  The men drove in the offender's vehicle to the victim’s address, arriving at about 10.30 pm. 

1. The victim was at home with his fiancée (who was not the offender's former partner).  Their vehicles were in the driveway. 

1. The…