R v Eastwood-Figura
[2018] ACTSC 133
•5 April 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Eastwood-Figura |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 133 |
Hearing Date: | 5 April 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 5 April 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | See [20]–[21]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aiding and abetting aggravated robbery – objective seriousness of the offence – deterrence – accountability – denunciation. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45 and 310(b) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 35 and 35A |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Brittany Louise Eastwood-Figura (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Swan (Crown) Mr D Lee (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Gabbedy Milson Lee Lawyers (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 12 of 2018 |
MURRELL CJ:
The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity to the offence that on 2 May 2017 she aided and abetted an offence of aggravated robbery (armed robbery) committed by Mitchell Jacka (the co-offender), contrary to ss 45 and 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
Having regard to the utilitarian value associated with the timing of the plea, the offender should receive a sentence discount of 25 per cent pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act).
Facts
The offender and the co-offender were in a de-facto relationship.
At 3:25 pm on 2 May 2017, they rode a motorcycle to a liquor store in the Nichols shopping precinct. The co-offender was seated in front and the offender was riding as pillion passenger. The co-offender entered the liquor store, produced a sawn-off shot gun, demanded money and left the store with about $300.00 in a bag. He returned to the motorcycle and handed the bag containing the money to the offender. It is not suggested that the offender knew that the co-offender would commit this offence.
The couple rode the motorcycle to a supermarket in Bruce, arriving at about 3:45 pm. The offender remained seated on the motorcycle while the co-offender entered the supermarket, pointed the sawn-off shot gun at a staff member and removed $2000.00 from the cash register. The couple then drove from the scene. The incident was captured on CCTV and the staff member provided police with a description of the offender and co-offender.
On 9 May 2017, the couple was arrested. Each participated in a record of interview in which they made full admissions. The offender was polite and cooperative with police and expressed remorse. In relation to the assistance provided by the offender, I note s 35A of the Sentencing Act and will take her assistance into account in a general way.
Objective seriousness
Unlike the offence committed by the co-offender, that committed by the offender was of relatively low objective seriousness. There is no evidence that she was engaged in planning the offence; she became shortly before its execution. She did not carry a weapon herself. Her role was to accompany the co-offender to and from the scene. Although she was aware that the co-offender had a firearm (a dangerous weapon), there is no evidence that she was aware of the extent to which he might use it. Her role was very different from that of the co-offender.
Nevertheless, the high maximum penalty for an offence of aggravated robbery demonstrates that any such offence is inherently serious.
Subjective circumstances
The offender was 19 years old at the date of the offence.
She had no prior criminal record. Subsequently, in mid-2017, she committed a number of motor vehicle offences (using an unregistered and uninsured vehicle and driving while her license was suspended). In October 2017, the Magistrates Court imposed supervised good behaviour orders for those offences.
The offender had a troubled childhood. Her parents separated when she was five years old. Thereafter, she resided with her father until she was about 10 years old, when she left his household because of his violence. She lived with her mother and aunt, with whom she continues to enjoy supportive relationships. At 17 years of age, ACT Housing provided her with a residence. By that stage she had two children, both the product of her relationship with the co-offender.
While at school, the offender was suspended because of misbehaviour. She left school prior to completing Year 10. After leaving school, she worked in a fast food restaurant for six weeks. She has not worked since leaving that employment. The offender was in a relationship with the co-offender for five years, up to May 2017. She maintains that the relationship ended when the co-offender was arrested and imprisoned in May 2017. However, the offender has continued to visit the co-offender in custody. Currently, contact is supervised because of an allegation that the offender passed a package to the co-offender during a visit.
The offender lives alone in an ACT Housing property. Her children are in care. She receives a Centrelink payment. She consumes cannabis daily and has attended counselling sessions with ACT Health Alcohol and Drug Services. She says that she intends to continue with counselling. She describes her mood as low. She requires an up-to-date mental health assessment.
As stated above, the offender made immediate admissions about committing the offence. From the outset, she has been remorseful.
Co-offender
On 15 August 2017, the co-offender was sentenced by Elkaim J for five offences of aggravated robbery (including the subject offence) and one offence of aggravated burglary. For each offence of aggravated robbery, he received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (discounted by 25 per cent from a sentence of four years’ imprisonment). The sentences were accumulated such that the co-offender received a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years’ imprisonment. In sentencing the co-offender, Elkaim J observed that, like the other robbery offences for which his Honour was sentencing the co-offender, the subject offence was objectively very serious; the offender wore a motorcycle helmet (his identity was partially concealed), carried a shot-gun (a dangerous and frightening weapon), and threatened an employee with the shot-gun.
The co-offender was about 28 years old at the date of the offence. He had an entrenched drug problem requiring intensive intervention. He had mental health issues, including a diagnosis of depression. He had a significant prior criminal history, and had received sentences of full-time detention. He was assessed as being at a high risk of re-offending and Elkaim J considered that he had “bleak” prospects of rehabilitation.
As stated above, the objective seriousness of the offence committed by the offender was quite different from the objective seriousness of that committed by the co-offender. Further, their subjective circumstances are very different. Notably, at the time of the offences, the offender was much younger than the co-offender and she had no criminal history.
Other sentencing considerations
In relation to offences of this type, considerations of general deterrence, accountability and denunciation are always important. Having regard to the youth of the offender and her lack of prior criminal history, rehabilitation is a prominent sentencing purpose.
Sentence
The offender is convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. The starting point for the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment but I discount it by 25 per cent for the early plea of guilty.
I make a suspended sentence order, suspending all the sentence of imprisonment upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for a period of two years from today. The good behaviour order is subject to the additional conditions that the offender is to:
(a)accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services for a period of nine months and any further period that Corrective Services deems to be desirable;
(b)report to Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on 5 April 2018; and
(c)make all reasonable attempts to gain admission to a Karralika residential program and remain upon that program.
| I certify that the preceding twenty-two [21] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell. Associate: Date: |
0
0
2