SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Hawkins |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 10 |
Hearing Date: | 30 January 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 30 January 2019 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Offender convicted and sentenced to a total of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of 2 years and 4 months. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated robbery – Obtain property by deception – Ride in motor vehicle without consent – Objective seriousness of the offences – Where the offender has lengthy criminal history – Where there is some prospect of rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 149 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 318(2), 326 |
Cases Cited: | R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Christopher Hawkins (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Mr S McLaughlin (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 150A of 2018 |
Murrell CJ
Introduction
On 13 November 2018, following a criminal case conference, the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:
(a)Count 1: between 15 January and 5 February 2017 at Canberra, he dishonestly rode in a motor vehicle contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
(b)Count 2: on 30 January 2017 at Canberra, he committed robbery in company with an unknown man, and had an offensive weapon with him, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
(c)Count 3: on 30 January 2017 at Canberra, by deception, he dishonestly obtained property belonging to Barry Thomas, intending to permanently deprive Barry Thomas of the property, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
(d)Count 4: on 19 February 2017 at Canberra, he committed robbery and had an offensive weapon with him, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Crown agreed to discontinue associated charges.
Having regard to the utilitarian value of the pleas (considering the timing of the pleas and the savings to the victims in the criminal justice system), the offender is entitled to a sentence discount in the range of 15 to 20 per cent. Due to the strength of the case against him on all charges, the discount should not be at the upper end of that range.
Facts
On 15 January 2017, a Mazda vehicle was…
Continue reading R v Hawkins
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 10
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were the objective seriousness of the offences committed by Hawkins, the relevance of his criminal history in determining the sentence, and the possibility of his rehabilitation. The court needed to balance these factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the gravity of the offences, which included obtaining property by deception and riding in a vehicle without consent. The court also took into account Hawkins's lengthy criminal history, which demonstrated a pattern of offending behaviour. However, the court also recognised that there was some prospect of Hawkins's rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment, with a nonparole period of 2 years and 4 months, was appropriate.
The court's decision was made in light of the need to protect the community, to provide a deterrent effect, and to offer the offender an opportunity for rehabilitation. The sentence imposed reflects the court's consideration of the seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Offender convicted and sentenced to a total of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of 2 years and 4 months.
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.