R v Hall - [2015] ACTSC 115

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hall
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 115
Hearing Dates:	17 April and 8 May 2015
DecisionDates:	17 April and 8 May 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Seven days’ imprisonment for the offences of damage property and theft. 15 months’ imprisonment for the offence of attempt to take motor vehicle without consent, suspended upon the offender entering into a 12 month good behaviour order
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – damage property – theft – attempt take motor vehicle without consent – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 33 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44(1), 308, 318(1), 403(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Marley Hall (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr M Toole (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 126 of 2014; SCC 127 of 2014

Murrell CJ:

The Offences

The offender adheres to pleas of guilty to the following offences committed on 26 October 2013:

(a)Damage property (two counts), (causing damage to two vehicles), contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
(b)Attempt to take motor vehicle without consent (one of the vehicles subject of the damage property offences), contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code (by virtue of s 44(1)). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
(c)Theft (taking a pair of sunglasses), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

The offender entered a plea of guilty in respect of all charges about six weeks before the trial was listed to commence and after plea negotiations. Pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), the appropriate discount is about 15%.

Background to the Offences

On 26 October 2013, between 4.15pm and 5pm, the offender attended commercial premises and went to the car park. He gained entry to a blue Ford Courier vehicle by smashing the driver's side window and then interfering with the driver's door locking mechanism. His palm print was left on the vehicle. This action is the subject of the first of the damage property charges.

He also gained entry to a white Toyota RAV4 by smashing the rear driver's side window and thereby gaining access to the vehicle. In attempting to start the vehicle without keys, he caused damage to the vehicle dash and ignition, rendering the ignition inoperable. His blood was left on the vehicle. This action is the subject of the second of the damage property charges and the attempt to take motor vehicle without consent charge.

He removed a pair of sunglasses from the Toyota RAV4 vehicle. This is the subject of the theft charge.

Reparation of $66 is sought in relation to the blue Ford Courier vehicle and $739.76 is sought in relation to the…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2015] ACTSC 115
Case: [2015] ACTSC 115
Decision Date: 8 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, Hall was charged with damaging property, theft, and attempting to take a motor vehicle without consent. The case was heard and determined in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The defendant was found guilty of all charges and the sentencing hearing proceeded. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for each offence, taking into account the circumstances and the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court identified that the offences were serious, involving a level of premeditation and dishonesty. The defendant had damaged a property, stolen items, and attempted to steal a motor vehicle, actions that showed a disregard for the rights and property of others. The court considered the defendant's background, including previous convictions, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for the defendant to reform and reintegrate into society.

The court determined that the defendant's offending behaviour warranted a custodial sentence for the attempt to take a motor vehicle without consent, given the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's criminal history. A sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was imposed, but was suspended on the condition that the defendant enter into a 12 month good behaviour order. For the other two offences, the court imposed a sentence of seven days' imprisonment, recognising the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the lesser seriousness of these offences compared to the attempted motor vehicle theft. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, aiming to address the harm caused by the defendant's actions while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Seven days’ imprisonment for the offences of damage property and theft. 15 months’ imprisonment for the offence of attempt to take motor vehicle without consent, suspended upon the offender entering into a 12 month 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.