R v Collins

Case [2019] ACTSC 302

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Collins

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 302

Hearing Date:

28 August 2019

DecisionDate:

28 August 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [60]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission of damage to property – obtaining property by deception – taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent – aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving – driving while disqualified – deferred sentence – where evidence of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 108

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 12, 19, 33
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 318, 321, 326, 403
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 63
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7

Cases Cited:

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

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2
Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Brent Douglas Collins (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

L Sutton (Crown)

K Ginges (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aulich Legal (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 167 of 2018; SCC 168 of 2018

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

  1. On 28 June 2018, Brent Collins (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)one offence of damage to property by joint commission contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC18/6756) (Count 1). The maximum penalty for that offence is 1000 penalty units, 10 years’ imprisonment, or both;

(b)one offence of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code (CC18/6753) (Count 2). The maximum penalty for that offence is 1000 penalty units, 10 years’ imprisonment, or both;

(c) one offence of riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/4244) (Count 3). The maximum penalty for that offence is 500 penalty units, 5 years’ imprisonment, or both; and

(d) one offence of taking a motor vehicle without authority contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code (CC18/6176) (Count 4). The maximum penalty for that offence is 500 penalty units, 5 years’ imprisonment, or both.

  1. The following transfer offences are also before this Court for sentence:

(a) one offence of aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management)…

Continue reading R v Collins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302
Case
[2019] ACTSC 302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Collins, the defendant Collins was charged with multiple offences including the joint commission of damage to property, obtaining property by deception, taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent, and aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving. The case was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in imposing a deferred sentence, considering the evidence of Collins' rehabilitation. The court was also required to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive.

The court considered the principles guiding the imposition of a deferred sentence, particularly in cases where the offender had demonstrated rehabilitation. It examined whether the trial judge had given adequate weight to the evidence of Collins' rehabilitation and whether the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed. The court found that while the offences were serious, the trial judge had appropriately considered the evidence of rehabilitation and the principles guiding the imposition of a deferred sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding it to be appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that while the offences were serious, the trial judge had given due consideration to the evidence of rehabilitation and the principles governing the imposition of a deferred sentence. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation in sentencing decisions and confirmed that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

ORDERS:
The appeal was dismissed. The original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [60]

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.