R v Featherstone - [2019] ACTSC 218

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Featherstone
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 218
Hearing Dates:	15 and 24 July 2019
Decision Date:	16 August 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [89]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – possess prohibited firearm – aggravated robbery – take motor vehicle without consent – aggravated burglary – damage property – driving motor vehicle without consent – possess knife without reasonable excuse – possess ammunition – sentencing of co‑accuseds – extensive criminal history – history of mental illness – dismissal of other charges
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 17, 27(3)(c), 34, Dictionary Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 312, 318(1), 318(2), 403(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 177(2)
Cases Cited:	R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Damien Featherstone (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Purnell SC (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 164 of 2018 SCC 165 of 2018 SCC 166 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

After a jury trial, the offender, Damien Glenn Featherstone, was found guilty on a charge of using against a person an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm (CC2018/5352). This was a contravention of s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty being imprisonment for 10 years. He was also found guilty of forcible confinement (XO2018/31432). This was a contravention of s 34 of the Crimes Act, the maximum penalty being imprisonment for 10 years.
The offender had pleaded guilty to 10 other charges, namely:
(a)two counts of possess a prohibited firearm contrary to s 177(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (CC2018/5353 and CC2018/4113), the maximum penalty being 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both;
(b)one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2018/4112), the maximum penalty being 2500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both;
(c)one count of take motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code (CC2018/4114), the maximum penalty being 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both;
(d)one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code (CC2018/4115), the maximum penalty being 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both;
(e)one count of damage property contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code (CC2018/4116), the maximum penalty being 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both;
(f)one count of riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (CC2018/3354), the maximum penalty being 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both;
(g)possessing a knife without reasonable excuse contrary to s 382(1) of the Crimes Act (CC2018/3357) the maximum penalty being 10 penalty units, imprisonment for six months or both; and

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 Featherstone

Details

AGLC: R v Featherstone [2019] ACTSC 218
Case: [2019] ACTSC 218
Decision Date: 16 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Featherstone, the respondents, Featherstone and his accomplice, were brought before the court to answer for their involvement in a series of criminal activities. The respondents were charged with possessing a prohibited firearm, committing an aggravated robbery, taking a motor vehicle without consent, perpetrating an aggravated burglary, causing damage to property, driving a motor vehicle without consent, possessing a knife without reasonable excuse, and possessing ammunition. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues that the court had to address involved the appropriate sentencing for the respondents, considering the extensive criminal history of Featherstone, his history of mental illness, and the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court had to balance the seriousness of the crimes with the respondents' backgrounds, including their mental health conditions, in determining a just and proportionate sentence.

The court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the severity of the offences and the need to protect the community from the respondents' criminal conduct. However, it also took into account the respondents' backgrounds, including their mental health issues, which had not been properly managed. The court noted that the respondents had shown some remorse and had expressed a desire to address their mental health issues. Ultimately, the court decided that the respondents should be sentenced to imprisonment, but with a focus on rehabilitation and support for their mental health needs. The court dismissed some of the charges against the respondents due to insufficient evidence.

The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Featherstone and his accomplice to imprisonment terms that reflected the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offences and the respondents' backgrounds. The court also ordered that the respondents receive appropriate mental health support and rehabilitation services during their imprisonment. The court's decision aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for the respondents to address their underlying issues and reintegrate into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [89]

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.