R v Eichmann - [2019] ACTSC 212

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eichmann
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 212
Hearing Dates:	29 April 2019, 15 July 2019, 9 August 2019
DecisionDate:	9 August 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	See [52]–[54].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated robbery – Drive motor vehicle without consent – Aggravated dangerous driving – Drug driving – Fail to stop for police – Trespass – Offender has limited criminal history and strong prospects for rehabilitation – Whether intensive corrections order is appropriate
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 35 Criminal Code2002 (ACT) ss 310, 318(2) Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11(1) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 20(1) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act1999 (ACT) ss 5C, 7(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 10 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107; 346 NSWLR 367 R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kiran James Eichmann (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr B Ngugi (Crown) Ms B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 14 of 2019; SCC 15 of 2019

Murrell CJ

The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences that occurred on 5 December 2018:

(a) Aggravated robbery, an offence against s 310 of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) that carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment.

(b) Dishonestly and without consent driving a motor vehicle belonging to another, an offence against s 318(2) of the Criminal Code that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

(c) Aggravated dangerous driving (exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 per cent), an offence contrary to s 7(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act1999 (ACT) that carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

(d) Drive a motor vehicle with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid, an offence against s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) that carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment and licence disqualification (five years automatic, 12 months’ minimum disqualification). This matter was transferred from the Magistrates Court.

(e) Fail to stop for police (in an incident involving an officer on a motorcycle) contrary to s 5C of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), an offence that carries a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment and three months’ automatic licence disqualification. This matter was transferred from the Magistrates Court.

(f) Fail to stop for police (incident involving officers in a motor vehicle). This matter was transferred from the Magistrates Court.

(g) Trespass, contrary to s 11(1) of Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), an offence for which the maximum penalty is a fine of $1600. This matter was transferred from the Magistrates Court.

In relation to the offences other than trespass, a fine…

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 Eichmann

Details

AGLC: R v Eichmann [2019] ACTSC 212
Case: [2019] ACTSC 212
Decision Date: 9 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Eichmann, was charged with multiple offences including aggravated robbery, driving a motor vehicle without consent, aggravated dangerous driving, drug driving, and failing to stop for police. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by His Honour Judge [surname]. The central issue before the court was to determine whether an intensive corrections order would be an appropriate sentence for the accused, given his limited criminal history and the prospects for his rehabilitation.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, which involved significant risk to the community and substantial harm to the victims. However, it also noted the accused's limited prior criminal record and potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to weigh these factors against the need for punishment and deterrence. It examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the objectives of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence, and how they applied to the accused’s circumstances.

The court concluded that an intensive corrections order would be appropriate in this case. It found that such an order could effectively address the rehabilitation needs of the accused while also serving the interests of justice by imposing a significant penalty. The court considered the specific terms of the order necessary to achieve these objectives, including supervision, community service, and other rehabilitative measures. The court imposed the order, which included a term of imprisonment, and outlined specific conditions to be met by the accused.

The final orders of the court, as detailed in paragraphs [52] to [54] of the judgment, specified the terms of the intensive corrections order, including the length of the term, the conditions of supervision, and the requirements for the accused to participate in various rehabilitative programs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [52]–[54].

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.