R v Craft; R v O'Connor - [2014] ACTSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Craft; R v O’Connor
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 327
Hearing Date:	30 October 2014 and 4 November 2014
DecisionDate:	4 November 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Mr O’Connor – effective sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment Mr Craft – effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment See [51]-[53].
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – co-offenders – burglary – theft – dishonesty drive/ride in motor vehicle – attempt aggravated robbery – dishonestly take motor vehicle – accessory after the fact to aggravated robbery – guilty pleas – substantial criminal history – history of substance abuse – breach of parole
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 308, 310, 311, 318(1), 717 Drugs of Dependence Act1989 (ACT) s 123
Cases Cited:	R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Daniel James Craft (First Offender) Mark Anthony O’Connor (Second Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Saikal (Crown) Mr A Doig (First Offender) Mr R Davies (Second Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitor (First Offender) Legal Aid ACT (Second Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 88, 89, 110 and 129 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

Mr O’Connor is to be sentenced for the following offences, which have the listed maximum penalties:

1

19-20 January 2014

burglary at Deakin

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) s 311

14 years’ imprisonment

2

22 January 2014

burglary at Belconnen

Criminal Code s 311

14 years’ imprisonment

3

22 January 2014

theft at Belconnen

Criminal Code s 308

10 years’ imprisonment

4

22 January 2014

burglary at Melba

Criminal Code s 311

14 years’ imprisonment

5

22 January 2014

theft at Melba

Criminal Code s 308

10 years’ imprisonment

6

22–26 January 2014

dishonestly drive/ride in motor vehicle without consent (van)

Criminal Code s 318(1)

5 years’ imprisonment

7

25 January 2014

attempt aggravated robbery of car

Criminal Code s 44, 310

25 years’ imprisonment

8

25 January 2014

dishonestly take motor vehicle (Proton)

Criminal Code s 318(1)

5 years’ imprisonment

Mr Craft is to be sentenced for the following offences, which have the listed maximum penalties:

1

22-26 January 2014

dishonestly drive/ride in motor vehicle without consent (van)

Criminal Code s 318(1)

5 years’ imprisonment

2

25 January 2014

accessory after the fact to attempt aggravated robbery

Criminal Code ss 310, 717

20 years’ imprisonment

3

25 January 2014

dishonestly take motor vehicle (Proton)

Criminal Code s 318(1)

5 years’ imprisonment

In relation to offence 7 involving Mr O’Connor and offence 2 involving Mr Craft, two additional offences of minor theft of petrol (on 24 and 25 January 2014) are to be taken into account. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for an offence of minor theft is six months’ imprisonment.

The offenders indicated pleas of guilty after they were committed for trial to the Supreme Court, but before the matters…

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 Craft; R v O'Connor 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: [2014] ACTSC 327
Decision Date: 4 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mr Craft and Mr O’Connor, were convicted of various offences including burglary, theft, and accessory after the fact to aggravated robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Both applicants had entered guilty pleas, but the court had to determine the appropriate sentences given the severity and nature of their criminal activities.

The court needed to weigh various factors including the applicants' substantial criminal histories, their history of substance abuse, and the seriousness of the current offences. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing for co-offenders and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The applicants' roles in the various offences were distinct, with Mr Craft being more directly involved in the commission of the crimes, while Mr O’Connor acted as an accessory.

The Supreme Court of South Australia found that both applicants had extensive criminal records and a history of substance abuse, which contributed to their offending behaviour. However, the court also noted the applicants' guilty pleas and their apparent remorse. After considering all the circumstances, the court determined that Mr Craft should receive an effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, while Mr O’Connor should receive an effective sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment. The detailed reasons for these sentences were provided in paragraphs [51] to [53] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mr O’Connor – effective sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment

Mr Craft – effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment

See [51]-[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.

1	19-20 January 2014	burglary at Deakin	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) s 311	14 years’ imprisonment
2	22 January 2014	burglary at Belconnen	Criminal Code s 311	14 years’ imprisonment
3	22 January 2014	theft at Belconnen	Criminal Code s 308	10 years’ imprisonment
4	22 January 2014	burglary at Melba	Criminal Code s 311	14 years’ imprisonment
5	22 January 2014	theft at Melba	Criminal Code s 308	10 years’ imprisonment
6	22–26 January 2014	dishonestly drive/ride in motor vehicle without consent (van)	Criminal Code s 318(1)	5 years’ imprisonment
7	25 January 2014	attempt aggravated robbery of car	Criminal Code s 44, 310	25 years’ imprisonment
8	25 January 2014	dishonestly take motor vehicle (Proton)	Criminal Code s 318(1)	5 years’ imprisonment

1	22-26 January 2014	dishonestly drive/ride in motor vehicle without consent (van)	Criminal Code s 318(1)	5 years’ imprisonment
2	25 January 2014	accessory after the fact to attempt aggravated robbery	Criminal Code ss 310, 717	20 years’ imprisonment
3	25 January 2014	dishonestly take motor vehicle (Proton)	Criminal Code s 318(1)	5 years’ imprisonment