R v Inder - [2019] ACTSC 208

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Inder
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 208
Hearing Date:	8 August 2019
DecisionDate:	8 August 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [15]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drive motor vehicle without consent – Ride motor vehicle without consent – arson vehicle – joint commission damage property – pleas of guilty – mental health concerns for offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 308, 311, 315(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 90A, 90B Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 5C, 7A
Cases Cited:	R v Arcus [2016] ACTSC 318 R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15 R v Jackson [2018] ACTSC 40 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ashley Inder (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 104 of 2019; 105 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 9 May 2019, the offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to six separate offences. Of those six offences, four were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence pursuant to s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the remaining two were transferred pursuant to s 90B as related offences.

A summary of the offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a) Two charges of riding or driving a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000, or both.

(b) One charge of causing damage to a vehicle by fire, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $240,000, or both.

(c) One charge of recklessly causing damage to property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.

(d) One transfer charge of driving at a speed dangerous and failing to comply with a request or signal given by a police officer to stop the vehicle contrary to s 7A Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 3 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $48,000, or both.

(e) One transfer charge of failing to stop motor a vehicle for the police contrary to s 5C Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $16,000, or both.

The facts of the offences are set out in detail in the Statement of Facts. In brief summary, on 23 February 2019 a couple living in the Canberra suburb of Dunlop were awoken by noises which they…

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 Inder

Details

AGLC: R v Inder [2019] ACTSC 208
Case: [2019] ACTSC 208
Decision Date: 8 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Inder involved the respondent, Inder, who pleaded guilty to a series of charges including driving a motor vehicle without consent, riding a motor vehicle without consent, and causing damage to property through arson. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, which were committed jointly with another individual. The sentencing considerations included the nature and severity of the offences, the respondent's mental health concerns, and his previous criminal history. The matter was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia, which was responsible for assessing the plea, determining the facts, and imposing an appropriate sentence.

The court was tasked with weighing the gravity of the offences against the mitigating factors, such as the respondent's mental health issues. It needed to ensure that the sentence was just and proportionate to the crimes committed, taking into account the respondent's capacity to understand and participate in the criminal activity. Additionally, the court had to consider the principle of totality, ensuring that the cumulative sentence did not excessively punish the respondent for the joint commission of the offences.

After considering the submissions and evidence presented, the court delivered its judgment. It found that the respondent's mental health concerns warranted a degree of leniency, but these did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to deter future criminal conduct. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the sentence and the considerations that led to the final determination.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment for the respondent, taking into account the plea of guilty and the mitigating factors. The court also made orders for the respondent to undergo a mental health assessment and treatment as part of his sentence, reflecting the importance of addressing his mental health concerns in conjunction with the custodial sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [15]

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.