R v Hawkins - [2020] ACTSC 29

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hawkins
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 29
Hearing Date:	10 February 2020
DecisionDate:	10 February 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 37 months: see [16]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated robbery – joint commission – offender on conditional liberty at time of offence – premeditation by planning an excuse to enter the premises – actual violence – possession of knife – relevance of the offender’s childhood disadvantage – history of drug and alcohol abuse – substantial criminal history – rehabilitation an important consideration because of offender’s relative youth – sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45A
Cases Cited:	R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 10 R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 103
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher Hawkins (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (Crown) J Moffett (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 73 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Christopher Hawkins has pleaded guilty to a single count of aggravated robbery. The offence occurred by reason of the joint commission provision in s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of 2500 penalty units or both.

Facts

On 24 September 2018 the offender and an unidentified female co-offender entered premises where Mr JK lived. He was present at home with a friend Mr QF. The ruse used to obtain access to the premises was a request by the unidentified female co-offender to use the bathroom at the house. The female was led in to use the bathroom and the offender also entered the premises. When JK sat back down the offender removed a large black handled knife from its sheath and pointed it towards JK saying “give us everything you’ve got, your money, everything”. JK said that he only had five dollars. The offender hit him twice in the back of the head with the butt of the knife. JK walked to his bedroom and showed the offender his wallet that had a single five dollar note in it. The offender said “we are out of here”. The offender closed the door of the bedroom leaving JK inside. JK left the bedroom and saw the offender still with his knife. He grabbed the offender’s face with his left hand and pushed his fingers into the offender’s eyes and punched him with a closed fist. He wrestled with the offender which resulted in both of them falling on the floor. QF attempted to intervene but was struck in the left hand by the offender’s knife, causing a deep laceration.

The offender kept saying “give us what you’ve got” JK replied “I’ve only got the five dollars”. The offender broke free and ran out the front door with the female following closely behind. The female picked up QF’s telephone which was on a coffee table.…

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 Hawkins

Details

AGLC: R v Hawkins [2020] ACTSC 29
Case: [2020] ACTSC 29
Decision Date: 10 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hawkins, the appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, having committed the offence while on conditional liberty. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, together with an accomplice, planned to enter the victim's premises under the guise of collecting a debt, armed with a knife. Upon entering, the appellant committed violence against the victim, causing injury. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the appellant's personal background and the circumstances of the crime.

The court had to determine the weight of various mitigating factors, including the appellant's disadvantaged upbringing, history of drug and alcohol abuse, and prior criminal record, against the severity of the offence. It was essential to balance these factors with the need for punishment and deterrence. The appellant's relative youth and potential for rehabilitation were also significant considerations. The court acknowledged the appellant's premeditation and the actual violence inflicted but also recognised the importance of providing an opportunity for rehabilitation due to the offender's age and background.

After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment for 37 months. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, the need for punishment and deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised that while the appellant's background and history of substance abuse were mitigating factors, they did not negate the seriousness of the crime. The sentence also aimed to protect the community by incapacitating the offender for a period sufficient to deter future criminal behaviour. The court's decision balanced the need for justice with the possibility of rehabilitation, considering the appellant's youth and background.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 37 months: see [16]

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.