Legal Research
Cases
R v Collier

R v Collier

Case [2019] ACTSC 358 19 December 2019

Jurisdiction

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Collier

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 358

Hearing Dates:

26 and 27 November 2019

Decision Date:

19 December 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [78]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – circumstances of violence – where offender did not personally perpetrate or threaten violence – plea of guilty – criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 12, 33, 35, 35A

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22

Cases Cited:

Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297

Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Butters v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 1

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

DPP v Brooks [2008] VSCA 253

Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483

Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302; 37 VR 658

Imbornone v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 144

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80

Mun v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 234

R v Harrison [2002] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380

R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288

R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305

R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298

The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2

Van Zwam v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 127

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Norman Collier (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

K Lee (Crown)

B Morrisroe (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Boxall Legal (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 199 of 2019

Introduction

1. On 26 November 2019, Mr Norman Collier (the offender) pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated burglary contrary to section 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).
2. The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine, or both.

Agreed Facts

3.        The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts, which forms Exhibit 1. What follows is a brief summary.
4.        On 10 January 2019, the offender accompanied Dean Reid, David Evans, Joshua Watson, and Sharon Ann Stott to the residence of Mr Goward (the victim) at Oaks Estate.
5.        They came to the property because Ms Stott wanted to speak with the victim for 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 Collier

Details

AGLC: R v Collier [2019] ACTSC 358
Case: [2019] ACTSC 358
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Collier, the respondent was convicted of aggravated burglary following a guilty plea. The circumstances of the offence involved the respondent entering a residence with the intention of committing an offence therein, namely theft. The respondent was not the primary perpetrator of any violence, nor did they threaten any violence. The case came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the nature of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the absence of personal violence. The legal issues centred on the principles of sentencing for aggravated burglary, the role of personal violence in determining the severity of a sentence, and the relevance of the offender's prior criminal conduct.

The Court noted that while the respondent did not personally perpetrate or threaten violence, the offence of aggravated burglary inherently involves an element of violence by virtue of the unlawful entry into a residence with the intent to commit an offence therein. The Court further considered the respondent's criminal history, which included previous convictions for burglary and theft, as well as the need to deter both the respondent and the community from engaging in such criminal conduct. In delivering its judgment, the Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, balancing the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The Court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offence and to provide deterrence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the aggravated burglary offence and the respondent's criminal history. The Court acknowledged that while the respondent did not personally engage in or threaten violence, the nature of the offence warranted a sentence that conveyed the seriousness of the criminal conduct. The sentence imposed was deemed to be proportionate to the offence and reflective of the need to protect the community and deter future criminal behaviour. The Court also considered the potential for rehabilitation, ensuring that the sentence included appropriate measures to address the respondent's criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Orders