R v Collins (No 2) - [2018] ACTSC 294

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Collins (No 2)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 294
Hearing Date:	15 October 2018
DecisionDate:	29 October 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [53]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – knowingly concerned in aggravated robbery – aggravated robbery with knife – significant criminal history – whether deferred sentence available when offender serving a suspended sentence – deferred sentence not appropriate in the circumstances – reparation order – custodial sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration Act) 2005 (ACT), ss 110(2), 140 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 9, 10, 19, 27, 65, 66, 78, 80, 108(1), 110(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 310(b) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 127, Table 142 item 1
Cases Cited:	R v Collins [2018] ACTSC 204 R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 R v Ross (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 5 November 2012) Zhao v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brett Norman Collins (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 280A of 2017 SCC 280B of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Brett Norman Collins was found guilty after a trial by judge alone of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT). He has also pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in a robbery. The maximum penalty for each offence is 25 years imprisonment or a fine of $375,000 or both.

Facts

The first in time offence is that of being knowingly concerned in the commission of the robbery on two women, who I will refer to as NI and UA. This offence occurred on 25 February 2017. On that day the offender and two unknown persons drove to Mitchell in a blue Commodore. The offender was a passenger in the vehicle. Shortly before 6pm one of the other occupants of the vehicle got out of the vehicle and entered the “Ewe Canberra” health store on Lysaght Street in Mitchell. One of the unknown persons went into the store, brandished a knife that was about 30cm long and approached UA, a customer in the store, and demanded her car key from her. UA did not understand what he was saying. NI, who was serving her in the shop, explained that he was demanding her key. The unknown person repeated the demand for the key several times and then told NI to put her phones in UA’s handbag and give it to him. UA placed one mobile phone and $1300 cash inside the handbag but refused to give him the other phone. After a brief struggle, the unknown person left the store carrying the handbag and UA followed behind him. The unknown person got into her red Toyota Lexus. UA opened the passenger side door and the unknown person told her to help him start the car. UA left…

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 Collins (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Collins (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 294
Case: [2018] ACTSC 294
Decision Date: 29 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collins (No 2) involved the respondent, Collins, who had been charged with knowingly being involved in an aggravated robbery. This offence occurred with the use of a knife and was committed while Collins was serving a suspended sentence. The court had to determine the appropriate sentencing for this serious criminal activity, taking into account Collins' significant criminal history. The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on whether a deferred sentence could be applied in this context and whether a custodial sentence would be warranted instead.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a deferred sentence could be imposed on Collins, given that he was already serving a suspended sentence for another offence. The court examined the precedent set by previous cases, which suggested that a deferred sentence might not be appropriate when the offender was concurrently serving a suspended sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Collins' criminal history warranted a custodial sentence. The court weighed the aggravating factors of the crime, including the use of a knife and the respondent's criminal background, against any potential for rehabilitation.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court noted that a deferred sentence was not suitable in the circumstances. It found that Collins' extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the current offence warranted a custodial sentence. The court also considered the need for reparation and the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding on a custodial term that reflected the gravity of the crime and the respondent's past conduct. The court also imposed a reparation order as part of the sentence, aimed at addressing the harm caused by the offence.

The court ordered that Collins be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence. The reparation order was intended to assist in repairing the harm done to the victim and to promote the rehabilitation of Collins. This decision underscores the importance of considering both punitive and rehabilitative aspects in sentencing for serious criminal offences, particularly when the offender has a significant criminal history.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [53]

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.