R v CR - [2021] ACTSC 93

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v CR
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 93
Hearing Date:	14 May 2021
DecisionDate:	14 May 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	On Counts 1 and 4, re-sentenced to 12 months’ and three months’ imprisonment, fully suspended on entering 12-month good behaviour orders with additional conditions. On Counts 5 to 7, breach noted but no further action taken.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Breach of good behaviour order – Re-sentence – Young person – Joint commission aggravated robbery – Dishonestly ride in motor vehicle – Common assault – Minor theft – Fail to stop for police – Unlicenced driver
Cases Cited:	R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) CR ( Young Person)
Representation:	Counsel C Daly ( Crown) J de Bruin ( Young Person)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Young Person)
File Numbers:	SCC 94, 95 of 2020

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

On 7 July 2020, I sentenced the young person for offences committed during a disturbance at the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre on 26 August 2019: R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178. I imposed the following sentences.

(a)Count 1: joint commission of aggravated robbery—14 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 18 months’ imprisonment), from 11 August 2020 to 10 October 2021, suspended from 24 August 2020 on entering into a good behaviour order until 24 February 2022.
(b)Count 2: damage property—$300 fine.
(c)Count 3: aid attempt to escape—three months’ imprisonment (reduced from four months’ imprisonment) from 11 April 2020 to 10 July 2020.
(d)Count 4: dishonestly ride in motor vehicle—three months’ imprisonment (reduced from four months’ imprisonment) from 11 June 2020 to 10 September 2020, suspended from 24 August 2020 on entering into a good behaviour order until 24 February 2021.
(e)Count 5: common assault—six-month good behaviour order.
(f)Count 6: common assault—12-month good behaviour order.
(g)Count 7: common assault—12-month good behaviour order.
(h)Count 8: unlawful possession of stolen property—$100 fine.
(i)Count 9: interfere with fire extinguisher—$300 fine.

Relevantly, on Counts 1 and 4, I imposed suspended sentences and associated good behaviour orders that were current as at 17 November 2020, and Counts 5 to 7 resulted in good behaviour orders that were current as at 17 November 2020.

On 17 November 2020, the young person breached his good behaviour obligations by committing offences for which, on 22 April 2021, he was sentenced by Magistrate Cook in the Childrens Court. His Honour imposed the following sentences.

(a)Minor theft—$300 fine.
(b)Failing to stop motor vehicle for police—five months' imprisonment, from 17 November 2020 to 16 April 2020.
(c)Unlicenced driver—one month’s imprisonment, from 17 November 2020 to 16 December 2020.

In relation to the breach, the young person spent 18 days on remand from 16 April to 4 May 2021, not referable to the sentences imposed by Magistrate Cook. On 4 May 2021, he was granted bail.

Facts of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v CR and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] ACTSC 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v CR was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant, CR, a young person, was originally sentenced in July 2020 for multiple offences committed during a disturbance at the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre, including joint commission of aggravated robbery, dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle, and multiple counts of common assault. The court imposed suspended sentences and good behaviour orders. CR subsequently breached these orders and was sentenced in April 2021 for new offences including minor theft, failing to stop for police, and driving without a licence. The Crown applied for the original sentences to be re-considered in light of these breaches.

The legal issues before the court were whether the breaches of the good behaviour orders justified re-sentencing for the original offences and, if so, what appropriate sentences should be imposed. The court had to balance the seriousness of the breaches against the young person's prospects for rehabilitation and potential for reform. The court also had to determine whether any further action was required in relation to the breaches of the good behaviour orders that were not associated with a suspended sentence.

The court found that CR had breached the good behaviour orders by committing further offences just three months after being released. While the new offences were relatively minor, the fact that CR failed to stop for police demonstrated a significant disregard for his obligations. However, the court noted CR's youth, his prior engagement with supervision, and his recent participation in rehabilitation programs. The court was satisfied that CR had reasonable prospects for rehabilitation but required supervision to achieve this. The original suspended sentences were therefore re-considered, with the court imposing fully suspended sentences subject to new good behaviour orders and additional supervision conditions.

In conclusion, the court re-sentenced CR for the original offences of joint commission of aggravated robbery and dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle, imposing fully suspended sentences subject to new 12-month good behaviour orders with additional supervision conditions. The court took no further action in relation to the breaches of the other good behaviour orders.

Orders