R v John Andrew Seckold - [2005] ACTSC 34

R v JOHN ANDREW SECKOLD [2005] ACTSC 34
(18, 22 February 2005)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 204 of 2004

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 18, 22 February 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No SCC 204 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

R

v

JOHN ANDREW SECKOLD

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  18, 22 February 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

in relation to the offence of armed robbery, I sentence you to a term of 6 years’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of taking the motor vehicle, YXN 032, on 27 October 2003, I sentence you to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of taking the motor vehicle, YTQ 201, on 31 October 2003, I sentence you to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of attempting to steal a purse from Ms Zang on 1 November 2003, I sentence you to a period of 6 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of attempting to steal a handbag from Ms Sayer, I impose a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of aiding and abetting a theft of Ms Boponus, I impose a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the theft of Mr Hull I impose a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of taking and using the motor vehicle, YAU 12T, on 2 November 2003, I impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of taking and using the motor vehicle, QEH 145, I impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of unlawful riding in the motor vehicle, YPW 832 knowing that it was stolen, I impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of attempting to steal a handbag from Ms Butler, I impose a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of taking and using a motor vehicle, YBZ 06F, I impose a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment;

in relation to the offence of burglary on 6 November 2003, I impose a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment;

the sentence for the 13^th offence is to commence 3 years and 2 months after commencement of the 1^st offence;

the sentence for the 2nd offence is to commence 4 years and 10 months after the commencement of the sentence for the 1^st offence;

the sentence for the 3rd offence is to commence 5 years after the sentence for the 1^st offence;

the sentence for the 8th offence is to commence 5 years and 2 months after the sentence for the 1^st offence;

the sentence for the 9th offence is to commence 5 years and 4 months after the sentence for the 1^st offence;

the sentence for the 12th offence is to commence 5 years and 6 months after the sentence for the 1^st offence;

the sentence…

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 John Andrew Seckold

Details

AGLC: R v John Andrew Seckold [2005] ACTSC 34
Case: [2005] ACTSC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Andrew Seckold was convicted of a series of offences committed between 27 October 2003 and 6 November 2003, including armed robbery, taking motor vehicles, and theft. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that adequately reflected the severity of the crimes while also considering the defendant's background and prospects for rehabilitation. The key legal issues involved balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence with the mitigating factors presented by Seckold's troubled upbringing, drug addiction, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the principle of totality, ensuring the overall sentence was commensurate with the course of criminal conduct.

The court emphasised the serious nature of armed robbery, noting the emotional trauma it can cause victims. However, it also took into account Seckold's difficult childhood, history of abuse, and drug dependency, which began as a coping mechanism for his personal pain. The court acknowledged Seckold's guilty pleas, efforts to stay drug-free for a period of time, and his expressed remorse and desire for rehabilitation. The psychologist's report indicated that Seckold suffered from a major depressive disorder and substance dependence, but was not at immediate risk of self-harm.

Considering all these factors, the court imposed a sentence of 6 years for the armed robbery, with other sentences ranging from 6 months to 3 years for the various offences. The court also took into account the time Seckold had already served in Victoria for related offences, adjusting the sentences to reflect this. The final sentence included backdating and setting non-parole periods to encourage Seckold's rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society.

Orders