R v Horan - [2020] ACTSC 189

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Horan
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 189
Hearing Date:	10 February 2020
DecisionDate:	10 February 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [29]–[33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – theft – damaging property – pleas of guilty – consideration of commencement of drug addiction at early age – rehabilitation very significant sentencing consideration
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311, 403
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kieran Horan (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe (Crown) J Campbell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 310 of 2019

BURNS J:

Kieran Horan, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to offences of burglary (CC 10563/19), theft (CC 10564/19) and damaging property (CC 10566/19). These offences occurred on a date between 26 December 2018 and 4 January 2019.

The short facts are that you broke into a house in Franklin, ACT, before stealing a number of items and also damaging a large number of items in the property.

The maximum penalty for the offence of burglary, contrary to s 311 of the

Criminal Code 2002
(ACT) (the Criminal Code) is 14 years' imprisonment, a fine of $224,000, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.

On 21 November 2019, you pleaded guilty to the charges in the ACT Magistrates Court. These pleas were entered at the third mention of the matters after representations were accepted by the Crown. The representations concerned charges of riding and driving in a motor vehicle stolen during the burglary and in the days subsequent.

You have been in custody since 11 October 2019 in relation to this offence and also others. On 18 November 2019, you were sentenced to 39 days' imprisonment in the ACT Magistrates Court for an offence of failing to appear. This was backdated so as to commence on 11 October 2019 which, I understand, was the date you were first taken into custody, and to conclude on 18 November 2019. That was time served at the time of sentencing. As such, the time spent in custody since 19 November 2019 can be solely attributed to the instant offences.

The Prosecution case against you was not weak but it was not overwhelmingly strong. I accept that these pleas of guilty were early pleas of guilty and I propose to reduce by approximately 25 per cent the sentences which I would otherwise have imposed in order to reflect the utilitarian value of your pleas of guilty. I also accept that these pleas demonstrate a degree of remorse on your part.

Subjective features

You have a criminal history, but…

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 Horan

Details

AGLC: R v Horan [2020] ACTSC 189
Case: [2020] ACTSC 189
Decision Date: 10 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Horan and another, were convicted of burglary, theft, and damaging property. The case was heard in the relevant court. The key legal issues centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed, considering the defendants' pleas of guilty and the significant rehabilitation efforts undertaken by the defendants, particularly in the context of the defendant Horan's early onset of drug addiction. The court had to weigh these factors against the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court acknowledged the defendants' guilty pleas and the significant rehabilitation efforts they had undertaken, particularly the defendant Horan's battle with drug addiction from an early age. The court considered these factors as substantial in determining an appropriate sentence. It was noted that while the crimes were serious, the defendants' efforts towards rehabilitation and change warranted consideration in the sentencing process. The court also assessed the impact of the crimes on the victims and the broader community.

In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation. It determined that, while the crimes were serious, the defendants' significant rehabilitation efforts and the early onset of drug addiction were substantial mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, aiming to achieve a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the sentences be as detailed in paragraphs [29] to [33] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [29]–[33]

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.