R v Hodge

[2015] ACTSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hodge

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 214

Hearing Date(s):

23 July 2015

DecisionDate:

23 July 2015

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Total sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment.  Eligible for release to parole on 26 January 2017.

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – aggravated robbery in company – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – co-offenders armed –– on conditional liberty when offences committed – combined discount of 40% for early guilty plea and assistance to law enforcement authorities – mental health problems make imprisonment more onerous

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35, 36

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310

Cases Cited:

Regina v Minnis (2014) ACTSC 268

Rubino v The Queen (2015) ACTCA 22

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Bradley James Hodge (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S McMurray (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 83 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

1. The offender adhered to pleas of guilty entered at an early stage to offences of aggravated robbery (robbery in company), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

1. The maximum available penalties for the offences are 25 years’ imprisonment and five years’ imprisonment respectively.

1. The offender was on parole when the offences were committed.  On 27 January 2015, he was taken into custody and, from 3 March 2015, parole was cancelled.  On 26 July 2015, the outstanding sentence will expire.

The facts

1. At about 9.45 pm on Monday, 26 January 2015, the offender went with the co-offenders Ms Murray and Ms Wedge to the home of the victim and his partner in Kambah. 

1. The victim was watching television when he heard a noise outside.  He saw that the offender and the co-offenders were outside.  He spoke to the offender through the window.  The offender asked whether the victim had any “weed”, and the victim said that he did not.  The offender said that he proposed to take a bike from the premises for the purpose of going to purchase drugs.  The victim asked the offender not to take the bike as it belonged to the victim’s children.  The offender started to yell and punch at the window.  He grabbed the victim’s hand.  The offender then moved to the front fly-screen door and, together with the co‑offenders, began to bang on the front door, demanding money and drugs. 

1. The front door was open.  Eventually the fly-screen door, which had been shut and locked, buckled and opened, enabling the offender and co-offenders to enter the premises.  Ms Murray was carrying a knife.  Ms Wedge was carrying a chair leg.  The offender and co-offenders pushed the victim back into the house, continuing to demand money and drugs.  After some time, a demand was made for the keys to the victim’s motorbike.…