R v GD - [2015] ACTSC 401

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v GD
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 401
Hearing Date:	23 October 2015
DecisionDate:	2 November 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [38] to [44] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young offender to be sentenced for aggravated burglaries, thefts and dishonest use of motor vehicles – offences committed in breach of good behaviour order made in connection with suspension of sentence for aggravated robbery – later offences committed in breach of conditions on bail granted in respect of earlier offences – claim that offences committed under influence of methamphetamine – methamphetamine use begun despite successful completion of drug rehabilitation program – offender’s troubled relationship with father since parents’ separation – parity – pleas of guilty – difficulty in determining what might deter young offender – sentence imposed. CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young offender to be sentenced for aggravated burglaries, thefts and dishonest use of motor vehicles – application for reparation order in respect of damage to vehicle – no basis for inferring that loss suffered by owner or insurance company arose out of offender’s dishonest use of vehicle concerned so as to satisfy criteria for making of order – reparation order refused.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 19, 20, 133C, 133C(2), 133G, Chapter 8A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312, 318(2)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) GD (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 134 of 2015; SCC 135 of 2015

The offences

GD has pleaded guilty to six offences, which I shall refer to in these sentencing remarks as the new offences. They are:

(a)two aggravated burglaries arising under s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including 20 years imprisonment;
(b)one theft arising under s 308 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including 10 years imprisonment; and
(c)three offences involving dishonest use of motor vehicles without consent, arising under s 318(2) of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including five years imprisonment and a licence disqualification (one of those offences involved riding in a vehicle, and the other two involved taking a vehicle).

One of the aggravated burglaries, and the theft, were committed on 6 April this year. GD and an unknown co-offender broke into a business in Mitchell and stole cash and goods worth just under $3,600 in total. GD was identified from CCTV footage.

The offence of dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle was committed on 9 April this year. GD and two other males were seen abandoning a gold Volvo that had been stolen five days earlier. The numberplates on the car had been replaced with plates from an unregistered vehicle.

On 14 April this year, GD, in…

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 GD

Details

AGLC: R v GD [2015] ACTSC 401
Case: [2015] ACTSC 401
Decision Date: 2 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v GD involved the sentencing of the defendant, GD, who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of aggravated burglary, theft, and dishonest use of motor vehicles. GD had previously been convicted of aggravated robbery and had been released on bail, during which time he committed the current offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for GD, considering his troubled background, his use of methamphetamine, and the impact of his actions on the victims. The court also had to consider a request for a reparation order in respect of damage caused to a vehicle.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for GD's offences, the factors that should be taken into account in determining the sentence, and the criteria for making a reparation order. The court had to balance the need to deter GD from further offending with the need to provide him with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact of GD's methamphetamine use on his offending and the difficulties in determining what might deter him. The court had to assess whether the criteria for making a reparation order were satisfied in relation to the damage caused to a vehicle.

The court determined that GD's offending was serious and warranted a substantial sentence. The court considered GD's background, including his troubled relationship with his father and his use of methamphetamine, but found that these factors did not excuse his offending. The court also found that GD's offending was premeditated and planned, and that he had shown no remorse for his actions. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The court also refused the request for a reparation order, finding that there was no basis for inferring that the loss suffered by the owner or insurance company arose out of GD's dishonest use of the vehicle concerned.

The court made several orders in relation to GD's sentence, including that he be placed on a good behaviour order for a period of five years following his release from prison, that he be subject to a drug and alcohol treatment order, and that he be required to undertake a rehabilitation program. The court also ordered that GD pay reparations to the victims of his offences in the amount of $5,000. The court's orders reflected its view that GD's sentence should be focused on deterrence, rehabilitation, and making amends to the victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [38] to [44] below.

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.