R v Greentree (No 2) - [2017] ACTSC 315

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Greentree (No 2)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 315
Hearing Date:	26 October 2017
DecisionDate:	26 October 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [25]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary – common assault – possess a knife without a reasonable excuse
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7
Cases Cited:	R v Greentree [2017] ACTSC 274 R v Lindley-Jones [2014] ACTSC 296 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Seears [2015] ACTSC 109 R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jeremy Greentree (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 192 of 2017 and SCC 193 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 19 September 2017, the offender was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the following charge:

That on 28 January 2017 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [he] remained in a building, namely [an address in the Australian Capital Territory] as a trespasser with intent to commit an offence that involved causing harm to anyone in the building, in company with Steven Lockwood and two unknown males and at the time had an offensive weapon with him.

The offence is contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). It carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $300,000 and/or 20 years’ imprisonment.

The offender’s plea of guilty was entered on a limited basis. He said that he acted alone and not in the company of Steven Lockwood or any other person.

This prompted a disputed facts hearing, which I heard on the same day as the plea. I gave my decision on 20 September 2017, finding that the offender had acted in company (R v Greentree [2017] ACTSC 274). I ordered that the judgment not be published pending the trial of an alleged co-offender. The same order is made in respect of this judgment.

The offender’s version of events was patently unbelievable. Notwithstanding this fact, he is still entitled to some benefit from his plea of guilty. It must, however, be limited because, although a much shorter hearing was involved, it was still necessary for the victim to give evidence. I think that a discount of approximately 10% is appropriate.

The background and facts of the offence are set out in my judgment of 20 September 2017. In short, the offender entered the premises of an acquaintance (the victim) with three men. The victim was assaulted, threatened and robbed. His injuries included a stab wound caused by chef’s scissors. The offender also struck him with a golf club.

The offender was born in 1982 in New South Wales. His parents separated when he was very young. He had observed acts of…

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 Greentree (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315
Case: [2017] ACTSC 315
Decision Date: 26 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greentree (No 2) involved the respondent, Greentree, who was convicted of aggravated burglary, common assault, and possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had appellate jurisdiction over the matter. The primary focus of the case was the sentencing of the respondent, who was appealing against the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The respondent argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the respondent, the principles that should guide sentencing in cases involving aggravated burglary, common assault, and possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse. The court had to determine whether the lower court correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing principles in arriving at the sentence. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's arguments regarding the cumulative effect of the crimes and the need for a proportionate sentence.

The High Court found that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant principles in sentencing the respondent. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed. The court emphasised the gravity of the respondent's offences, particularly the use of a knife during the commission of the crimes, and the need to protect the community from the respondent's criminal conduct. The court also noted the respondent's criminal history and the need for general deterrence in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the sentence imposed by the lower court be upheld. The court did not order any modifications to the sentence but confirmed that it was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed. The decision underscores the importance of considering the principles of sentencing in cases involving serious criminal conduct and the need for courts to balance the interests of justice with the need to protect the community from criminal activity.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [25]

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.