R v Hoare - [2020] ACTSC 238

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hoare
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 238
Hearing Dates:	9 July, 11 August, 4 September 2020
DecisionDate:	4 September 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to twelve months’ and eight months’ imprisonment, partly suspended on the offender entering a good behaviour order with additional conditions. Sentenced to two nine-month good behaviour orders with additional conditions.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Burglary – Theft – Damage property – Offences committed during mental health episode
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 309 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311, 403(1)
Cases Cited:	Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Alexander Hoare (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Smith (Crown) H Hayunga (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 8 of 2020

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

The offender is to be sentenced for the following offences committed on 3 October 2019:

(a)Count 1: Burglary with intent to commit theft, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000, or both.
(b)Count 2: Theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.
(c)Counts 3 and 4: Damage property, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.

The offender pleaded guilty on 20 May 2020, following criminal case conferencing and before a trial date had been set. While the Crown case was reasonably strong, there was also strong utilitarian value in the plea being entered at that stage. The offender should receive a discount of 20 per cent on the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed.

The offender has spent 102 days in custody in relation to the offences (i.e. approximately three and a half months), and that period will be taken into account in the sentences that are imposed.

Facts

The offender lived in a duplex-style house in Franklin, which was owned by the ACT Government.

On 3 October 2019, the complainant (who was the offender's next-door neighbour in the duplex) left his house to go on a holiday. Before leaving, he secured his house and left it clean and tidy.

Count 1—Burglary

Later on 3 October 2019, the offender smashed a hole in the front door of the complainant's house, reached through, unlocked the door from the interior, and entered the house.

At about 4 PM on that day, the offender posted videos to Snapchat. One video showed him standing outside the complainant's residence with the garage door open. He entered the residence and said:

Look at my shit I've got. I've got a fucking TV. I own the fucking next door neighbour's house. I've got…

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 Hoare

Details

AGLC: R v Hoare [2020] ACTSC 238
Case: [2020] ACTSC 238
Decision Date: 4 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hoare, the defendant was charged with burglary, theft, and causing damage to property. These offences were committed during a period of mental health distress. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's mental health circumstances.

The primary legal issue was the sentencing of the defendant, particularly in light of the mitigating factor of the defendant’s mental health episode at the time of the offences. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offences with the mitigating factor and ensure the sentence was proportionate and rehabilitative. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the need for deterrence, and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but recognised the significant mitigating factor of the defendant's mental health condition during the commission of the crimes. The court determined that a combination of imprisonment and good behaviour orders would best serve justice. The defendant was sentenced to twelve months and eight months imprisonment, partly suspended on the condition that the defendant enter a good behaviour order with additional conditions. Additionally, the court imposed two nine-month good behaviour orders with further conditions.

This decision highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances, including mental health, in the sentencing process. The court's approach aimed to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, reflecting the nuanced considerations necessary in criminal sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to twelve months’ and eight months’ imprisonment, partly suspended on the offender entering a good behaviour order with additional conditions. Sentenced to two nine-month good behaviour orders with additional conditions.

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.