SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Kirkwood |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 148 |
Hearing Dates: | 20 April, 9 May 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 24 June 2022 |
Before: | Kennett J |
Decision: | See [148]–[151] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault – attempted blackmail – aggravated robbery – possess offensive weapon – make demand with threat to kill – aggravated burglary – theft – cultivate cannabis plant – convictions recorded – sentences of imprisonment imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 12A, 26, 32, 35, 38 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45, 45A, 308, 310, 312, 342, 616, 618, 712A Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) s 111 |
Cases Cited: | Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Jesse Kirkwood ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel S Janackovic ( Crown) P Edmonds ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers ( Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 259, 260, 269, 270 of 2021 |
KENNETT J:
Introduction
In November 2021 the offender, Jesse Kirkwood, pleaded guilty to ten offences that occurred in July and August 2021.
The offences that occurred in July 2021 are as follows:
(a)Attempted blackmail, contrary to ss 44 and 342 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).
The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000, or both.
(b)Aggravated robbery (joint commission), contrary to ss 45A and 310 of the Criminal Code.
The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000, or both.
(c)Common assault (joint commission), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) and s 45A of the Criminal Code.
The maximum penalty is 2 years’ imprisonment.
The offences that occurred in August 2021 are:
(a)Two counts of aggravated…
Continue reading R v Kirkwood
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kirkwood [2022] ACTSC 148
- Case
- [2022] ACTSC 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the interpretation of the various offences, the applicability of the charges to the facts of the case, and the appropriate sentences for each conviction. The court had to assess whether the prosecution had established each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, determine the severity of the sentences based on the nature and circumstances of the offences.
The court found the defendant guilty on all counts. It carefully considered the evidence presented, the legal definitions of the offences, and the circumstances surrounding each incident. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof for each charge. In imposing sentences, the court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The sentences imposed were terms of imprisonment for each conviction, with the total reflecting the cumulative impact of the defendant's actions.
The court ordered that the sentences for each conviction be served concurrently, with specific details regarding the length of each term provided in the judgment. This decision ensures that the defendant receives a just and proportionate punishment for the range of offences committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [148]–[151]
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.