R v Hall (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 63

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hall (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 63
Hearing Dates:	25 March 2020 and 30 November 2020
DecisionDate:	1 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted burglary – dishonestly drive or take a motor vehicle without consent – aggravated burglary with intent to steal – theft – burglary with intent to steal – assault occasioning grievous bodily harm – guilty pleas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 308, 311, 311(1)(a), 312(a), 318(1), 318(2).
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 R v Hall [2015] ACTSC 115
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Marley Hall (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (25 March 2020) & E Wren (30 November 2020) (Crown) P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 167 of 2019; SCC 168 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 12 February 2020 the offender was arraigned on an indictment dated 6 February 2020. He entered a plea of guilty to all 10 counts. The charges and their maximum penalties are:

(a)Attempted burglary (SCCAN2020/24), contrary to s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000 or both.
(b)Dishonestly drive or ride in a motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/1909), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.
(c)Aggravated burglary with intent to steal (CC2019/1911), contrary to s 312(a) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $320,000 or both.
(d)Theft (CC2019/1912), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
(e)Burglary with intent to steal (SCCAN2020/25), contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000 or both.
(f)Theft (CC2019/1914), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
(g)
Dishonestly take motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/3846), contrary to

s 318(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.
(h)
Attempt to take motor vehicle without consent (SCCAN2019/3760), contrary to

s 318(1) of the Criminal Code, by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.
(i)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (SCCAN2019/3761), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.
(j)
Dishonestly drive a motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/3848), contrary to

s 318(2) of the Criminal…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Hall (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 63
Case: [2020] ACTSC 63
Decision Date: 1 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the respondent, Hall, against a decision to impose a sentence on him. The appellant, the Crown, sought to have the sentence increased, arguing that the original sentence was too lenient. Hall had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including attempted burglary, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, aggravated burglary with intent to steal, theft, and burglary with intent to steal. Additionally, he had pleaded guilty to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.

The court was required to determine whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the cumulative effect of the offending and the seriousness of the offences warranted a harsher sentence. Hall, on the other hand, maintained that the original sentence was appropriate given his age and the fact that he had pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial. The court needed to weigh these factors to determine the appropriate sentence.

In considering the arguments, the court noted the severity of the offences, the cumulative effect of the offending, and the fact that Hall had pleaded guilty. The court also considered his age and the impact of a custodial sentence on him. Ultimately, the court found that the original sentence was not manifestly inadequate and dismissed the Crown's appeal. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offending but found that the original sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]

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.