R v Cringle - [2018] ACTSC 41

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cringle
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 41
Hearing Date:	6 February 2018
DecisionDate:	8 February 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – burglary – theft – aggravated robbery with knife – guilty plea – criminal history of similar charges – possession of anabolic steroids considered in aggravated robbery sentencing – specific deterrence – custodial sentence
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Shane Cringle (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel J Walker (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 264 of 2017 SCC 8 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Shane Daniel Cringle has pleaded guilty to a number of offences.

First are charges of burglary (CC2017/12172) and theft (CC2017/12173) committed on
1 September 2017. These are related to burglary of and theft from a hair and beauty salon at the Ngunnawal shops. The offender had broken through a glass pane near the door lock and stolen a cash float of about $150 and a large black suitcase containing Indian saris and other clothing worth about $1890. The offender was identified by DNA from blood left at the scene.

The maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years imprisonment, or a fine of $210,000, or both. The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years imprisonment, or a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Pleas of guilty were entered at the first possible opportunity.

Second is a charge of aggravated robbery (CC2017/9734). The substance of the charge is that on 1 September 2017 he dishonestly appropriated $2243.25 belonging to McDonald’s restaurant, Kooyong Street, Braddon, with intention of permanently depriving it of the property and, at the time of doing so, he threatened to use force on an employee at the restaurant while armed with a silver-plated kitchen knife.

The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 25 years, or a fine of $375,000, or both.

The plea of guilty was entered on the second occasion that the matter was before the Magistrates Court. It was in substance a plea of guilty at the earliest possible opportunity.

Third is a charge of possession of anabolic steroids (CC2017/7864), which occurred on 18 June 2017. This is to be taken into account in sentencing for the offence of aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for six months, or a fine of $7500, or both.

Facts

I have described in summary form the facts relating to the burglary and theft above. It is necessary to say something more about the facts of the aggravated robbery having regard to the seriousness of that offence.

There is a McDonald’s restaurant located on the corner of Cooyong and Mort Streets in Braddon. At about 4:10am, the offender came to the front counter. He jumped the counter. The assistant manager told him that he was not allowed to come in. The offender showed the assistant manager a claw…

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 Cringle

Details

AGLC: R v Cringle [2018] ACTSC 41
Case: [2018] ACTSC 41
Decision Date: 8 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cringle involved the defendant, Cringle, who was charged with burglary, theft, and aggravated robbery with a knife. The dispute reached the court, where the primary issues were the appropriate sentencing for the crimes committed, taking into account Cringle's criminal history and his possession of anabolic steroids during the commission of the aggravated robbery. The court was required to determine the specific weight to be given to these factors and whether they warranted a more severe sentence.

The legal issues at hand involved the principles of sentencing in aggravated robbery cases, particularly the role of prior criminal conduct and the possession of harmful substances. The court had to assess whether Cringle's possession of anabolic steroids should be considered an aggravating factor, and how his extensive criminal history should influence the specific deterrence aspect of his sentence. The decision also needed to balance the need for punishment against the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court ruled that the aggravating factors, including Cringle's possession of anabolic steroids and his history of similar offences, warranted a custodial sentence. The court held that the specific deterrence and the need to protect the community were paramount considerations. Consequently, Cringle was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the need to deter future criminal behaviour. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors in crafting a sentence that appropriately addresses the crime and the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]

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.