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 |
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 son finds dealing with certain issues difficult in particular when he is unemployed. He says that his son “realises the gravity of his actions and the damaging effect they have had not only on the victims but also on others involved and his family members. He also appreciates he has a lot to make up for his behaviour, including with family and friends he has let down. I believe that he is on track in doing this”.
There is also a letter from the offender’s grandfather, which is equally supportive.
Dr Clout, a clinical psychologist, has provided a report dated 12 May 2021. She thinks that his antisocial behaviour can be controlled with appropriate treatment. Dr Clout suggests engagement with a psychiatrist and psychological counselling.
The offender has a young daughter from a previous relationship. He sees the child quite frequently, although not consistently. The offender is currently in a relationship with one of the other members of the group but has not seen her for some time due to his bail conditions. He currently lives with his grandfather.
The offender was diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability when he was quite young. This placed him in special education units at school, which in turn was a source of the bullying. He did however complete Year 10 and he was in steady employment as a line marker for some time. Unfortunately he lost his job at the end of 2019. Since then he has been working on a casual basis in the building industry. Fortunately he has very recently become a permanent employee with a scaffolding firm.
The offender has been using illegal drugs. He was under their influence, and of alcohol when the offending occurred. He says that he stopped taking drugs. Drug testing has confirmed his abstinence.
In 2019 the offender went through a period of depression which resulted in him attempting suicide by the means of a car accident.
When talking to the authors of the Pre-Sentence Report the offender minimised his involvement in the offending, saying he had not assaulted GF and the enterprise was not his idea. He also did not express any sympathy for the victims. This is to some extent understandable if GF had in fact been disseminating a video of him having sex with another person.
He did however express remorse to Dr Clout and again in court before me today. I accept that he is sorry for his actions.
While to some extent understandable, his actions are not excused. People must not take the law into their own hands. Vigilantism can be as criminal as the conduct it seeks to address.
The overall picture presented by a group of persons bursting into a home and assaulting its inhabitants describes an event of objective seriousness. There are some mitigating features, in particular the likely criminal conduct of GF which generated the escapade. Although, as I’ve already said, this does not excuse the actions, I think it reduces the objective seriousness to be below medium for these types of offences.
In addition it is also necessary for me to take into account the provisions of ss 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), as well as s 33. Section 10 is very important because it says a person should not be sent to prison except as a last resort.
In this case both the Crown and Ms Musgrove, on behalf of the offender, have submitted that an Intensive Corrections Order is the appropriate punishment. I agree. The Pre-Sentence Report says the offender is suitable for such an order.
Two of the other members of the group have been sentenced but there are different objective and subjective factors which lessen the role of parity in the sentencing of this offender.
I have taken into account the four days which he has spent in custody.
The two offences are really part of the same criminal enterprise so that I think there should be concurrency in the sentences. However the robbery, being a more serious offence, as reflected in the maximum penalty, will attract a longer sentence.
I have also taken into account the comparable cases set out by Murrell CJ in R v CN; R v SN; R v Rix [2019] ACTSC 293 from [85].
The offender is sentenced as follows:
(i)For the aggravated robbery: 15 months imprisonment (reduced from 18 months) to commence today and end on 31 August 2022.
(ii)For the aggravated burglary: 12 months imprisonment (reduced from 15 months) to commence today and end on 31 May 2022.
(iii)The above terms of imprisonment are to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.
(iv)It is a condition of the Intensive Corrections Order that the offender engage in any substance use and mental health treatment as directed.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-nine [29] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: 1 June 2021 |
6