Legal Research
Cases
R v Denniss

R v Denniss

Case [2021] ACTSC 15 3 February 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Denniss
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 15
Hearing Date:	3 February 2021
DecisionDate:	3 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery by joint commission – arson – low end of mid range objective seriousness – offending occurred while in custody – deprived childhood – various mental health diagnoses – history of illicit substance use – extensive criminal history including offending of the same type – sentences of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT), s 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 72 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 310, 404
Cases Cited:	R v Chevalier [2021] ACTSC 14 R v Denniss [2018] ACTSC 239 R v Denniss [2019] ACTSC 283
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Tian-Jarrah Denniss (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (Crown) K McKee (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 183 of 2020 SCC 184 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Tian-Jarrah Denniss, pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)count 1: joint commission aggravated robbery (CC2019/11525), contrary to ss 310 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 25 years’ imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both; and
(b)count 2: arson (CC2020/2166), contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty being 15 years’ imprisonment, 1500 penalty units or both.

The two offences arise out of two different incidents which occurred at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) while the offender was under sentence for other offences. In relation to count 1, the offence occurred by joint commission with Manoa Chevalier, who I am sentencing at the same time. Count 2 is a separate charge arising from the offender’s conduct while by himself in his cell.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have had to sentence Mr Denniss. I previously sentenced him in 2018 for an aggravated robbery and failing to return to custody: R v Denniss [2018] ACTSC 239. I subsequently sentenced him for two offences of arson committed whilst in custody: R v Denniss [2019] ACTSC 283.

Facts

The facts in relation to count 1 were agreed. They were summarised in my reasons in R v Chevalier [2021] ACTSC 14 at [4]-[12].

The facts in relation to count 2 were agreed and are summarised as follows. On 22 January 2020 the offender was housed in a cell in the crisis support side of the Management Unit at the AMC and was under constant observation. At approximately 12:30pm, while alone in his cell, the offender covered the window of the cell door with a towel. A corrections officer who was observing the offender attempted to remove the towel. Two other corrections officers attempted to assist, however, they were prevented from doing so when the offender spat on them.

Approximately 10 minutes later the first corrections officer noticed flames…

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 Denniss

Details

AGLC: R v Denniss [2021] ACTSC 15
Case: [2021] ACTSC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Tian-Jarrah Denniss pleaded guilty to joint commission aggravated robbery and arson while in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the need for community protection. The court found that the objective seriousness of the offences was at the low end of the mid range for aggravated robbery and at the low end for arson. The court also considered the offender's deprived upbringing, various mental health diagnoses, history of illicit substance use, and extensive criminal history. The court concluded that custodial sentences were the only appropriate sentences for these offences.

The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the offender taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the need for community protection. The court considered the offender's deprived upbringing, various mental health diagnoses, history of illicit substance use, and extensive criminal history. The court also considered the plea of guilty and the time already spent in custody. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for the offender was a sentence of three years and six months, with three years and three months to be cumulative upon the existing sentences. The non-parole period was also reset to start on 3 August 2018 and end on 2 December 2023.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and six months, with three years and three months to be cumulative upon the existing sentences. The non-parole period was reset to start on 3 August 2018 and end on 2 December 2023. The court also referred the offence of aggravated robbery for restorative justice. The offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years on the charge of aggravated robbery and a period of 12 months on the charge of arson.

Orders