R v Gibbs - [2013] ACTSC 293

R v BRENDEN JOSEPH GIBBS
[2013] ACTSC 293 (3 December 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary – Theft – Being knowingly concerned and dishonestly obtaining property by deception – Deferred sentencing order – No issue of principle

Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Crime (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Pt 4.2

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 308, 312, 326

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed, 2013, American Psychiatric Publishing)

Coggan v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49
Drayton v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 44
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314
R v Heffernan (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 10 November 2008)
R v Morgan (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 18 March 2011)
R v Reis (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 15 December 2008)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 41 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 3 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 41 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R
V
BRENDEN JOSEPH GIBBS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  3 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

Brenden Joseph Gibbs is not serving, or liable to serve, a term of imprisonment for an offence other than the offences for which he is to be sentenced.

It has considered the Pre-Sentence Report about Brenden Joseph Gibbs and the other evidence adduced on sentence.

It is satisfied that Brenden Joseph Gibbs should be given an opportunity to address his criminal behaviour and the risk factors that have contributed to that behaviour before he be sentenced for the current offences.

It is satisfied that Mr Gibbs may be released on bail under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aggravated burglary on 10 October 2012.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of theft on 10 October 2012.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of being knowingly concerned and dishonestly obtaining property by deception on 10 October 2012.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of being knowingly concerned and dishonestly obtaining property by deception on 10 October 2012.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs not be sentenced for these offences at this time.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs appear at 9:30 am on 11 June 2014 to be sentenced for the offences of aggravated burglary and theft and two offences of being knowingly concerned and obtaining property by deception.

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be released on bail to appear on that day with the following conditions:

(a) that he accept the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, especially as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling and mental health treatment and counselling.

(b) that he reside at [redacted].

(c) that he submit, when reasonably required by the officer delegated to supervise…

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 Gibbs

Details

AGLC: R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293
Case: [2013] ACTSC 293
Decision Date: 3 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brenden Joseph Gibbs was charged with aggravated burglary, theft, being knowingly concerned and dishonestly obtaining property by deception. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the charges against Gibbs. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Gibbs was involved in the aggravated burglary, theft, and the other related charges. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the legal standards required for a conviction.

The court examined the evidence meticulously, evaluating the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of the prosecution's case. The court considered whether Gibbs was present at the scene of the crime, whether he participated in the burglary, and whether he had knowledge of the deception involved in the theft. After reviewing all the evidence, the court found that Gibbs was indeed involved in the offences as charged. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, and Gibbs was found guilty on all counts.

The court then proceeded to sentence Gibbs, taking into account the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court imposed a deferred sentencing order, which meant that Gibbs would not receive an immediate custodial sentence but would be closely monitored and required to adhere to certain conditions. The court's decision was based on the belief that this approach would provide Gibbs with an opportunity to reform while still ensuring public safety.

The final order was that Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aggravated burglary on 10 October 2012, and a deferred sentencing order was issued.

Orders

Orders of the court

Brenden Joseph Gibbs be convicted of aggravated burglary on 10 October 2012.

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.