R v Crowther - [2019] ACTSC 338

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crowther
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 338
Hearing Date:	23 August 2019
DecisionDate:	29 October 2019
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [23]–[28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – assault – excellent prospects for rehabilitation – suitability for Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Wardel Crowther (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Fernandez (Crown) T Jackson (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich Law (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 154 of 2019; SCC 155 of 2019

BURNS J:

Mr David Crowther, you have pleaded guilty in this Court to one offence of aggravated robbery (CAN 2019/7286) on 24 June 2019, contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) and one offence of assault (CAN 2019/7287) on the same day, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act). A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts has been tendered. I will not go through the Statement of Facts in detail.

The Facts

It is sufficient to note that you robbed a petrol station attendant at knifepoint. During the robbery you, with knife in hand, grabbed the victim by the front of his shirt. In the course of the victim pulling away from you, he received a small cut from the knife that you were holding to the top of his left index finger.

You threatened to stab the victim if he did not give you money. The victim backed away from the cash register and you took money from the register's tray and put it into a shoulder satchel that you were carrying at the time. About $800 was stolen from the register. You then left the store and ran away. Police identified you by means of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage of the robbery. On 28 June 2019, police attended an address in Wanniassa and spoke to you. They recognised you as the person that they had seen in the video stills from the CCTV video recording.

You were arrested, cautioned and then transported to the ACT Watch-House. You participated in a record of interview with police in which you made a number of frank admissions as to your conduct. You are entitled to a degree of leniency in sentencing with regard to these offences because of your cooperation with the police. You have remained in custody since 28 June 2019.

On 29 June 2019 you pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery as it was originally laid in the ACT Magistrates Court. That plea was entered at the first mention before that Court. It has properly been conceded by the Crown that it was a plea at the earliest opportunity.

On 2 July 2019, you pleaded guilty to the charge of assault in the ACT Magistrates Court. That plea was entered on the second mention…

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 Crowther

Details

AGLC: R v Crowther [2019] ACTSC 338
Case: [2019] ACTSC 338
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crowther involved the appellant, who was charged with aggravated robbery and assault. The dispute arose over the sentence imposed on the appellant, specifically whether the sentence was appropriate and whether an Intensive Correction Order was a suitable alternative. The matter was heard in the NSW Supreme Court.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether an Intensive Correction Order would be a more suitable form of punishment given the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to consider the nature of the crimes committed, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing in relation to rehabilitation and deterrence.

The court carefully examined the severity of the crimes, which involved both aggravated robbery and assault. However, it also considered the appellant's background, including his excellent prospects for rehabilitation and the absence of any prior criminal history. The court was mindful of the need to balance punishment with the potential for the appellant to reform and reintegrate into society. After detailed analysis, the court concluded that an Intensive Correction Order would be more appropriate, given the appellant's circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. This decision was based on the belief that such an order could effectively address the appellant's criminal behaviour while providing opportunities for meaningful rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence be set aside and replaced with an Intensive Correction Order, reflecting the court's determination that this would be a more suitable and rehabilitative form of punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [23]–[28]

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.