R v Gordon

Case [2018] ACTSC 94


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Gordon

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 94

Hearing Date:

15 March 2018

DecisionDate:

15 March 2018

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

For make demand with threats, sentenced to five months’ imprisonment from 1 January 2018.  For aggravated robbery, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended after 12 months on a two year good behaviour order.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – robbery committed in company – offensive weapon used to commit robbery – make demand with threats – young offender – significant criminal history – substance abuse – mental health issues

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 32(2)(a)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310(a)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Isaac John Gordon (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J Walker (Crown)

Ms K Musgrove (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Paul Edmonds & Associates (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 321 of 2017

MURRELL CJ:

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to the following offences committed on 24 September 2016: 

(a)aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) – maximum penalty 25 years' imprisonment; and

(b)make demand with threats contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) – maximum penalty, 10 years' imprisonment.

  1. In relation to both offences, s 45A may but does not have to, be applied. 

  1. The co-offender was a juvenile who will be dealt with separately.

Pleas of guilty and time served

  1. The offender pleaded guilty at the sixth mention in the Magistrates Court and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.  He had been self‑represented at the first two mentions.  The brief of evidence was served before the pleas were entered.  The Crown case was very strong.  Nevertheless, having regard to the timing and utilitarian value of the pleas, he should receive a 20 per cent discount on the sentences that I would otherwise have imposed.

  1. Prior to 5 January 2018, the offender spent four days in custody in connection with his arrest and breaches of bail.  On 5 January 2018, bail was refused.  The offender has been in custody since that date.  Having regard to the four days spent in custody before 5 January, the sentences will commence on 1 January 2018.

Facts

  1. At about 1.00 am on Saturday, 24 September 2016, the victim posted on his Facebook profile requesting a lift from Civic to Bonython.  Using his Facebook alias, the co‑offender offered a lift for $20.00. 

  1. At 1.35 am, the offender and co-offender drove the offender’s vehicle to agreed location at the rear of the Canberra Centre.  When the pair arrived, the offender moved from the front passenger seat to the rear passenger seat. This enabled the victim to sit in the front passenger seat.  The offender identified himself to the victim by his correct first name of Isaac.  The victim paid $20.00 for the lift.

  1. During the journey…

Continue reading R v Gordon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gordon [2018] ACTSC 94
Case
[2018] ACTSC 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Gordon, was charged with aggravated robbery and making a demand with threats. The case was heard in the relevant court, and the dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Gordon's criminal activities. Gordon had a significant criminal history, and the robberies were committed while he was under the influence of substances and suffering from mental health issues. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for these charges, considering the aggravating factors and the defendant's background.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Gordon's criminal activities. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the crimes, the aggravating factors present, and Gordon's personal circumstances, including his criminal history, substance abuse, and mental health issues. The court also had to consider the impact of the crimes on the victims and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the use of an offensive weapon during the aggravated robbery, and the fact that the crimes were committed in company. The court also took into account Gordon's significant criminal history, substance abuse issues, and mental health problems. The court determined that a sentence of five months' imprisonment, to run from 1 January 2018, was appropriate for the charge of making a demand with threats. For the aggravated robbery charge, the court sentenced Gordon to three years' imprisonment, but suspended the sentence after 12 months on a two-year good behaviour order. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the need to address Gordon's underlying issues to prevent reoffending.

The court's final orders were that Gordon be sentenced to five months' imprisonment for making a demand with threats, to run from 1 January 2018, and that he be sentenced to three years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery, suspended after 12 months on a two-year good behaviour order. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account the seriousness of the crimes, the aggravating factors, and Gordon's personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

For make demand with threats, sentenced to five months’ imprisonment from 1 January 2018. For aggravated robbery, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended after 12 months on a two year good behaviour order.

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.