R v Hinder - [2020] ACTSC 55

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hinder
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 55
Hearing Date:	20 March 2020
DecisionDate:	20 March 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for 14 months; the treatment and supervision part of the order is for 12 months. Reparation of $1,000. See [27]-[32].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – unauthorised possession or use of prohibited weapons – theft – drug and alcohol treatment order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 19, 20, 33, 35(4), 80O, 80S, 80T, 80W, 80Y, 80ZA, 109 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308 Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5
Cases Cited:	R v Beath-Williams [2019] ACTSC 80 R v Cringle [2018] ACTSC 41 R v Lee [2017] ACTCA 30 R v Bowler [2015] ACTSC 298
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Lochlan Hinder (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Dyason (Crown) T Kelliher (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 20 of 2020

Walker AJ (ex tempore)

Summary of charges

Mr Hinder is charged with one count of theft (CAN 9159/19) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)(the Code), an offence which on conviction carries up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine of up to $160,000 or a combination of both.

He is further charged with possessing a prohibited weapon (CAN 6360/19) contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), an offence which on conviction carries up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine of up to $80,000 or a combination of both.

Evidence

For the purposes of sentencing, I have available to me:

· the agreed statement of facts;

· the defendant’s criminal history in the Australian Capital Territory; and

· Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order Suitability Assessment reports from:

o Mr Andrew Cuthel, community corrections officer, ACT Corrective Services dated 3 March 2020

o Ms Elayne Cheong, social worker, Alcohol and Drug Service dated 3 March 2020 and

o Ms Alex Durant, social worker, Forensic Mental Health Services, 5 March 2020.

Facts

On 28 March 2019, Mr Hinder went into Angus and Coote Jewellers at Belconnen Westfield Shopping Centre. It was staffed by a store manager and an assistant. He approached a display cabinet and spoke with the assistant, Ms Hartley. He said he was looking for a gold chain worth about $3,000 and it has been confirmed that he did not have the means to pay for that chain. The store manager watched the exchange. Ms Hartley took a tray of chains which she held with both hands firmly as she turned to show it to Mr Hinder. He grabbed the tray from her and ran off from the store without paying for the items. He then left the shopping centre. Mr Hinder left his fingerprints on the glass display cabinet. The prints were later linked to Mr Hinder…

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 Hinder

Details

AGLC: R v Hinder [2020] ACTSC 55
Case: [2020] ACTSC 55
Decision Date: 20 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Hinder involved the respondent facing charges of unauthorised possession or use of a prohibited weapon, theft, and drug and alcohol related offences. The case was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges, and sentencing was the primary issue before the court.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence for the respondent's offences. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the possibility of rehabilitation through a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court also needed to determine the appropriate level of reparation for the harm caused by the respondent's actions.

The court concluded that a sentence aimed at rehabilitation and deterrence was most suitable for the respondent. The court found that the respondent had a significant history of drug and alcohol abuse, which contributed to the commission of the offences. Considering the respondent's guilty plea and willingness to participate in treatment, the court decided to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The treatment and supervision part of the order was set for 12 months, and the overall order was to last 14 months. The court also ordered the respondent to make a reparation payment of $1,000. This decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the respondent's background, the circumstances of the offences, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for 14 months; the treatment and supervision part of the order is for 12 months. Reparation of $1,000. See [27]-[32].

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.