CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – attempted burglary – burglary – damaging property – theft – aggravated burglary – drive motor vehicle without consent – where offender already serving custodial sentence – where DATO unavailable
Bradley Caine Dawson (the offender) is before the Court for sentence, having pleaded guilty on 11 November 2021 to the following offences:
(a)Count 1: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 44.
(b)Count 2: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 44.
(c)Count 3: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 44.
(d)Count 4: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 44.
(e)Count 5: burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
(f)Count 6: damage property, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
(g)Count 7: aggravated burglary, contrary to s…
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 Dawson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64
Case
[2022] ACTSC 64
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bradley Caine Dawson pleaded guilty to a series of offences committed on 30 April 2021 in the ACT. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, presided over by McWilliam AJ, sentenced Dawson on 31 March 2022. The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of Dawson, and the impact of his guilty pleas. The court also had to consider Dawson's eligibility for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO), as well as the principles of totality and finality.
The court found the objective seriousness of the offences to range from low to high, depending on the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The subjective circumstances of Dawson, including his extensive criminal history, substance abuse issues, and lack of connection to the community, were also taken into account. Dawson's guilty pleas were considered, resulting in a 20% discount on the proposed sentences.
Due to Dawson already serving a custodial sentence for similar offences, he was ineligible for a DATO. The court rejected proposals to adjourn the sentencing or split the offences to make Dawson eligible for a DATO, as these options would circumvent the principles of totality and finality and legislative intention.
The court structured the sentences to ensure a significant period of supervision, allowing for targeted rehabilitative intervention programs during that time. The total sentence was set at 3 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 18 months.