R v Crick - [2021] ACTSC 106

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crick
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 106
Hearing Date:	1 June 2021
DecisionDate:	1 June 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [29]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – aggravated burglary – Intensive Corrections Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310 and 312(a)
Cases Cited:	R v CN; R v SN; R v Rix [2019] ACTSC 293
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dylan Crick (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Marson (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 251 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

On 25 January 2021 the offender pleaded guilty in this Court to the following charges:

(a)Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine of $320,000 or both.
(b)Aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years, a fine of $400,000 or both.

The offender has spent four days in custody in relation to the above offences.

The facts are set out in detail in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit 1). The following is a summary.

The pleas were entered following a Criminal Case Conference. The offender is entitled to a discount which I assess at approximately 20%.

The offender was born in 1997. He is now 24 years of age.

On 10 July 2020 the offender and some other persons were at the Wanderlust Club in Mitchell. They discussed a Mr GF. He had allegedly distributed a video of the offender and a Ms H having sex. One of the group said she had been raped by GF.

Some of the group then drove to GF’s house with the intention of threatening him so that he would delete the videos. They forced their way into his house. They pushed aside his sister and mother.

They found GF in a bedroom where they assaulted him. This included smashing a plate over his head. The group left with two mobile phones which they later destroyed.

The offender’s role in the events of the evening, besides being part of the group, included apparently punching GF twice in the head, standing over GF and demanding his telephone. He later took hold of two telephones.

On 13 November 2019 the offender drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He was dealt with in the Magistrates Court. Other than the current matters, that is the extent of his record.

The offender is one of five children. He had a good upbringing and is particularly close to his father. He did however suffer from bullying through school.

The offender’s father has provided a letter to the court. He sets out the difficulties the offender has met as a result of his learning problems and ADHD. He says his…

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 Crick

Details

AGLC: R v Crick [2021] ACTSC 106
Case: [2021] ACTSC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crick, Dylan Crick pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the mitigating factors presented. The offender, who had a history of substance abuse and learning difficulties, had participated in an assault motivated by a video that had been circulated. The court considered these mitigating factors, as well as the objective seriousness of the crime, when determining the sentence.

The court found that while the crime was serious, the offender's actions were influenced by the circumstances and his own vulnerabilities. The court noted that the offender had expressed remorse and had taken steps to address his substance abuse issues. The court also considered the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), which emphasise the importance of rehabilitation and the use of imprisonment as a last resort. The Crown and the offender's legal representative both agreed that an Intensive Corrections Order would be an appropriate sentence.

The court ultimately decided to impose a sentence of 15 months imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently with a 12-month sentence for the aggravated burglary. Both sentences were to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order, which includes conditions for the offender to engage in substance use and mental health treatment. This decision was based on the offender's suitability for such an order and the need to address his underlying issues.

Orders