R v Crawford (No 3)

Case [2017] ACTSC 99


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Crawford (No 3)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 99

Hearing Date:

4 May 2017 and 25 August 2017

DecisionDate:

25 August 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [48]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – burglary – aggravated burglary – robbery – ride in a motor vehicle without consent – damage property – pleas of guilty and guilty verdict.

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:  

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 310, 311, 312 and 318

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 33

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B

Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9
R v Crawford [2016] ACTSC 44
R v Crawford (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 359
R v Hutchinson (ACTSC, 4 April 2013, Higgins CJ, unreported)
R v Monaghan (ACTSC, 11 December 2012, Refshauge J, unreported)

R v Miles [2015] ACTSC 162

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Peter Michael Crawford (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Fernandez (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 27 of 2016 ; SCC 83 of 2016 ; SCC 153 of 2016

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

  1. On 2 December 2016, the offender pleaded guilty to 21 of 29 counts in an indictment dated 29 August 2016. He pleaded not guilty to one count in the indictment and went to trial before me sitting without a jury. He was convicted on 6 December 2016 (R v Crawford (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 359).

  1. The offender is now to be sentenced in respect of 24 counts, including the 21 for which he pleaded guilty on 2 December 2016, the one on which he was found guilty, and the two in respect of which he pleaded guilty on 6 December 2016.

  1. The facts of the matter that went to trial can be found in the judgment cited above. The specific charge was:

That on 31 May 2015 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Peter Michael Crawford committed robbery in company with two unknown persons and at that time had an offensive weapon with him. 

  1. The facts of the other offences appear in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit A). The pre-sentence report indicates that, in respect of the offences to which the offender pleaded guilty, he agreed with the descriptions given and accepts responsibility for his actions. The offender continues to maintain his innocence in respect of the offence for which he was found guilty.

The offender’s background

  1. The offender was born in 1983. He did not have a normal childhood. He was removed from his mother’s care because she was an alcoholic. He found school difficult. He spent seven of his formative years in a “boys’ home”. Most of his adult life has been spent in custody.

  1. The offender is of Aboriginal…

Continue reading R v Crawford (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99
Case
[2017] ACTSC 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crawford, the defendant faced multiple charges, including theft, burglary, aggravated burglary, robbery, riding in a motor vehicle without consent, and damaging property. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the defendant contested both his conviction and the sentence imposed. The central legal issues revolved around the validity of the defendant's pleas of guilty and the appropriate sentence for the multiple serious criminal offences.

The court examined the procedural correctness of the defendant's guilty pleas, considering whether they were made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Additionally, the court addressed the sentencing, assessing whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court highlighted the severity of the crimes and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the defendant's actions.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the defendant's pleas of guilty were valid and properly administered. The court also determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, considering the cumulative effect of the defendant's criminal conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court ordered that the defendant's appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence be maintained. The decision affirmed the lower court's findings and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed for the series of serious criminal offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [48]

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.