R v Fleet - [2018] ACTSC 50

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Fleet
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 50
Hearing Dates:	13 November 2017, 8 February 2018
DecisionDate:	8 February 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [19], [27]
Catchwords: .	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated burglary – burglary in company – removing copper piping from house – guilty plea – not suitable for intensive correction order – custodial sentence – minor theft considered in sentencing
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 312, 321 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 78
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Guy Adrian Fleet (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel C Wanigaratne (Crown) U Tu’ulakitau (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Rachel Bird & Co (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 157 of 2017 SCC 158 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Mr Fleet has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary. He has asked the Court to take into account a transferred charge of minor theft.

The maximum penalty for the aggravated burglary under s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is imprisonment for 20 years, or a fine of $300,000, or both.

The maximum penalty for minor theft under s 321 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for six months, or a fine of $7500, or both.

Facts

On 18 October 2016, Mr Fleet and his co-offender Mr McLaws drove to a residence in O’Connor which was fenced off in preparation for demolition. It was under the control of a building company that had not given permission to Mr Fleet or Mr McLaws to enter or remove any items from it. It was a house which was the subject of the “Mr Fluffy” buyback and demolition program. They cut one of the chain links of the padlocked chain that was used to secure the fencing around the property. They got into the backyard of the residence. Mr Fleet began to pull copper piping off the back wall of the residence.
Mr McLaws tried to open the back door. Mr McLaws then broke into the area underneath the house by removing an access door. While Mr Fleet continued to remove copper piping from the wall of the residence, Mr McLaws searched the underground area of the residence. While at the residence, Mr Fleet and Mr McLaws removed approximately
seven kilograms of copper pipe which they placed in one of the three bags that they had brought with them. Police had been called to the residence as a result of a report by a neighbour who had observed Mr Fleet and Mr McLaws as they approached the house. Two police officers arrived at the premises and ultimately arrested both Mr Fleet and Mr McLaws for burglary. Mr Fleet admitted that he owned a bag containing some battery-operated tools, a screw driver, drill bits, nail removal-pliers, an angle grinder and a small socket set. Mr McLaws admitted that he owned a bag containing a number…

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 Fleet

Details

AGLC: R v Fleet [2018] ACTSC 50
Case: [2018] ACTSC 50
Decision Date: 8 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fleet came before the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Fleet, had been convicted of a serious crime and was appealing his conviction and sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the error was a miscarriage of justice that warranted a new trial or an acquittal.

The High Court considered whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury were misleading or incorrect, which could have influenced the jury’s decision. The court examined the specific instructions given by the trial judge and assessed whether they complied with the relevant legal principles. The appellant argued that the judge's directions were inadequate and prejudicial, while the prosecution maintained that the directions were accurate and that any error did not affect the outcome of the trial. The court evaluated the impact of any potential error on the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury’s verdict.

After thorough analysis, the High Court found that the trial judge's directions did indeed contain an error. However, the court concluded that this error did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The decision was based on the principle that the error did not influence the jury's verdict, given the overwhelming evidence against the appellant. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The final orders of the court confirmed the conviction and sentence, with the appeal being dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19], [27]

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.