R v Hill

Case [2016] ACTSC 310

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hill

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 310

Hearing Dates:

20 May; 25 August 2016

DecisionDate:

25 August 2016

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Sentenced to 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive corrections order.  Reparation of $266.95 to be paid within 12 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – robbery – burglary – take motor vehicle without consent – drive motor vehicle without consent – obtain property by deception – minor theft – possess knife in public place – possess drug of dependence – strong subjective circumstances – strong rehabilitation prospects – Intensive Corrections Order – reparation order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 11(3), 33

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 309, 311, 318, 326

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Christopher Hill (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown)

Ms L Taylor (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 5 of 2016; SCC 6 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on the following matters:

No Offence Charge Number Description Date Offence provision Maximum penalty
1 Burglary

CC2015/

10081

 Storage cage 22 October 2015 s 311 Criminal Code 2002 14 years' imprisonment
2 Burglary

CC2015/

10082

 Hoyts 22 October 2015 s 311 Criminal Code 2002 14 years' imprisonment
3 Robbery

CC2015/

10832

 Mrs Chaiyabarn 8 November 2015 s 309 Criminal Code 2002 14 years' imprisonment
4 Attempt to take motor vehicle without consent

CC2015/

10834

 BMW motor vehicle of Mrs Chaiyabarn 8 November 2015 s 318 Criminal Code 2002 Five years' imprisonment
5 Drive motor vehicle without consent

CC2015/

11543

 Toyota motor vehicle of Mrs Kemezys 8 November 2015 s 318 Criminal Code 2002 Five years' imprisonment
6 Obtain property by deception

CC2015/

11636

 Fuel 9 November 2015 s 326 Criminal Code 2002 10 years' imprisonment
7 Take motor vehicle without consent

CC2015/

11638

 Mitsubishi motor vehicle of Mr Pang 9 November 2015 s 318 Criminal Code 2002 Five years' imprisonment

  1. In addition, the Court is asked to sentence the offender on the following transferred matters:

No Offence Charge Number Date Offence provision Maximum penalty
1 Minor theft CC2015/
10084 		22 October 2015 s 321 Criminal Code 2002 Six months' imprisonment
2 Minor theft CC2015/
10085 		22 October 2015 s 321 Criminal Code 2002 Six months' imprisonment
3 Possess knife without reasonable excuse in a public place CC2015/
10083 		22 October 2015 s 382(1) Crimes Act 1900 Six months' imprisonment
4 Possess drug of dependence CC2015/
10793 		22 October 2015 s 169
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 		Two years’ imprisonment

Minor theft 1 relates to burglary 1 and minor theft 2 relates to burglary 2.

  1. In relation to the robbery offence (offence 3 in table 1), additional offences are to be taken into account: one offence of unlawful possession of stolen property (which carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment) and three minor…

Continue reading R v Hill

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310
Case
[2016] ACTSC 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hill, the defendant faced multiple charges including robbery, burglary, driving a motor vehicle without consent, obtaining property by deception, minor theft, and possession of a knife and a drug of dependence. The matter was heard in the relevant court where the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes, the circumstances of the defendant, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the defendant’s culpability and the circumstances surrounding the offences, particularly considering the presence of strong subjective circumstances and the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to weigh the appropriate form of punishment, including whether an intensive corrections order would be suitable given the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation and the need for reparation.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, determined that the defendant's actions warranted a sentence that balanced punishment and rehabilitation. The court found that an intensive corrections order was appropriate, given the defendant’s strong rehabilitation prospects. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay reparation of $266.95 within 12 months. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to three years and ten months' imprisonment, to be served by an intensive corrections order, along with the reparation order.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to three years and ten months’ imprisonment to be served by an intensive corrections order, and that reparation in the amount of $266.95 be paid within 12 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive corrections order. Reparation of $266.95 to be paid within 12 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.