R v Crawford - [2022] ACTSC 87

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crawford
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 87
Hearing Date:	22 April 2022
DecisionDate:	22 April 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – theft – where offender had an awful upbringing
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308, 312
Cases Cited:	Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99 R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) P M Crawford ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Priestly ( Crown) J Cooper ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 297 of 2021

Elkaim J

On 8 December 2021, the offender pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated burglary in contravention of s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $320,000. The offender also pleaded guilty to the offence of theft in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $160,000.

It is important to immediately note that each of the above two offences is made up of ‘rolled up’ charges.

There is an Agreed Statement of Facts. The following is a summary. On 15 September 2020 the offender went into a supermarket intending to commit theft. He was with another person. Together they stole items valued at $75,108.53.

The offender actually visited the supermarket twice, on the second occasion they removed a safe which contained $70,000 in cash. This explains the large amount of items stolen.

Considering the amount stolen, the offences being on a commercial premises and the degree of planning suggested by the return to the supermarket, I assess the objective seriousness of the offending at a little below medium.

There is no Victim Impact Statement but a reparation order is sought in the amount of $4,508.

The offender was born in 1983. Despite being only 38 years of age he has accumulated a very significant criminal record, some of which reflects offences in New South Wales and Queensland. He has spent a good deal of time in prison and does not seem to have much respect for supervision orders when he is living in the community.

I sentenced the offender in 2017 for 24 offences including aggravated robbery, burglary and aggravated burglary. The sentence was four years and two months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years (R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99). On 7 September 2020 Refshauge AJ sentenced the offender to 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The offences included aggravated robbery, aggravated burglaries and theft (R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245).

The offence before…

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 Crawford

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford [2022] ACTSC 87
Case: [2022] ACTSC 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crawford involved the offender, P M Crawford, who pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated burglary and theft. The offender, who had a significant criminal history, committed these offences while on rehabilitation under the Drug and Alcohol Court. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the offender's background, including his difficult upbringing, mental health issues, and substance abuse problems. The court also had to balance the principles of general deterrence and protection of the community with the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The court found that the objective seriousness of the offending was assessed as a little below medium. The offender had a history of failing to comply with supervision orders and rehabilitation efforts, indicating that imprisonment had not been effective in preventing reoffending. The court noted the offender's potential for rehabilitation, particularly if he could engage in his artistic talents outside of prison. However, the court emphasised that the offender must be punished for his criminal actions and that imprisonment was the only viable alternative. The court also considered the principle of totality to avoid an excessively harsh sentence and the possibility of accumulation between the two offences to recognise the extent of the theft.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the principles from Hoskins v R and R v Elphick, considering the appropriate range of sentences for aggravated burglary and theft. The court applied a 20% discount for the offender's early guilty plea. The court decided on a sentence of 19 months for aggravated burglary and 12 months for theft, with an accumulation of three months, resulting in a total of 22 months' imprisonment. The new sentences were to commence on 12 February 2024 to ensure some degree of concurrency with the existing sentence. The court also set a non-parole period of two years and six months and recommended that the offender not be released unless into a suitable rehabilitation regime.

The court made several orders, including sentencing the offender to 19 months for aggravated burglary and 12 months for theft, both to commence on 12 February 2024. The non-parole period was set to end on 21 October 2024. The court recommended that the offender not be released unless into a regime of suitable accommodation and rehabilitation opportunities. The court also decided that a reparation order would be pointless and possibly detrimental to the offender's chance of rehabilitation.

Orders