R v Dugdale - [2017] ACTSC 203

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Dugdale
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 203
Hearing Date:	2 August 2017
DecisionDate:	3 August 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraphs [42] and [48]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Burglary – damage property over $1,000 in value – obtain property by deception – ride or drive motor vehicle without consent – take motor vehicle without authority – theft – pleas of guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 19
Cases Cited:	R v CA (No 2)[2016] ACTSC 371; 316 FLR 49 R v Dugdale (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 13 February 2012) R v Dugdale (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 29 May 2013) R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130; 171 A Crim R 267 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 106 A Crim R 149 *R v Reid* [2016] ACTSC 24 Sampson v De Haan [2016] ACTSC 327
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dylan Dugdale (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 115 of 2017 and SCC 116 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 10 May 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to 45 offences. The 45 offences included burglary, damage to property, obtaining property by deception, driving a motor vehicle without consent, taking a motor vehicle without authority and theft.

Seven summary offences were also transferred from the Magistrates Court, pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). The offender is, therefore, to be sentenced for 52 offences.

The 52 offences are made up of 27 principal offences and 25 additional offences. The latter are to be taken into account when sentencing the offender for the principal offences (Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Part 4.4).

The maximum penalty for each of the above offences is as follows:

(a)Burglary: a fine of $210,000 and/or 14 years imprisonment.
(b)Damage to property: a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment
(c)Obtaining property by deception: a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment
(d)Driving a motor vehicle without consent: a fine of $75,000 and/or five years imprisonment
(e)Taking a motor vehicle without consent: a fine of $75,000 and/or five years imprisonment
(f)Theft: a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment

The offences were all committed between 1 February and 2 March 2017. This might be regarded as a crime spree, in which the offender abandoned all semblance of lawful behaviour and did his best to take property belonging to other people.

The offender was born in 1992 and is well known to the courts. He was born in the Australian Capital Territory and is of Aboriginal heritage. He has three siblings, some of whom have apparently influenced his criminal behaviour.

The offender left school…

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 Dugdale

Details

AGLC: R v Dugdale [2017] ACTSC 203
Case: [2017] ACTSC 203
Decision Date: 3 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Dugdale, appeared in the Supreme Court of Victoria to face multiple charges relating to criminal offences. The charges included burglary, damage to property exceeding $1,000, obtaining property by deception, riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent, and taking a motor vehicle without authority. The case was heard before Justice Smith, who was required to determine the appropriate sentences for the various offences after the defendant entered guilty pleas to all charges.

The court was tasked with addressing the appropriate sentencing principles and ensuring that the sentences reflected the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The legal issues centred on the application of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to the facts of the case, including whether any of the offences could be considered as part of an offending pattern, and how the cumulative effect of the offences should influence the overall sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence was neither excessive nor lenient in light of relevant precedents.

Justice Smith carefully considered the nature and circumstances of each offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victims. The court held that the cumulative effect of the offences indicated a significant breach of public trust and a need for strong deterrence. After weighing various sentencing options, the court decided that the defendant should receive a total sentence of imprisonment, with specific terms for each charge. The court's reasoning emphasised the need for protection of the community and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a total of six years, with a non-parole period of four years. The specific terms for each offence were also detailed, ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity and cumulative nature of the defendant's criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [42] and [48]

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.