R v Knight - [2021] ACTSC 165

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Knight
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 165
Hearing Date:	20 July 2021
DecisionDate:	22 July 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – young adult offender – parity amongst co-offenders – conviction recorded – intensive correction order – fine good behaviour order and community service work condition imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 10
Cases Cited:	R v Crick [2021] ACTSC 106 R v Robb [2021] ACTSC 164
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Jordan Knight ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Marson ( Crown) P Edmonds ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Paul Edmonds and Associates ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 45 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Jordan Knight, has pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine of $320,000, or both.
(b)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years.

Facts

The facts are agreed. I have set them out in some detail in my decision in R v Robb [2021] ACTSC 164 (Robb) at [4] – [23]:

On the evening of Thursday 9 July 2020, the offender was at Lighthouse Bar in Canberra with Letitia Humphries and Dylan Crick. They arrived at approximately 7:30pm and the offender and Ms Humphries were intoxicated by about 8:45pm.
At some time after 8:45pm, the group went to Wanderlust adult club in Mitchell. At approximately 10pm, they were joined by Morgan Facer and Jordan Knight. Each member of the group knew each other as friends and had gone to Wanderlust club to have a few drinks and play some pool. Marco Marzotto was also at the club and spoke to the group at some point, although he was not previously known to some members of the group.
While at the club, the members of the group were talking about an incident that had involved the offender and somebody who I will refer to as HG. The offender became upset, alleging that HG had raped her. She started to cry and threw a glass.
During this conversation, there was also some suggestion that HG had been circulating video footage of Mr Crick and Ms Humphries engaged in sexual activities. At some point, Mr Marzotto said, “Let’s go talk to him”.
At some point, Ms Facer heard Mr Crick or Mr Knight say words to the effect of, “Let’s go for a drive”. Mr Crick asked Ms Facer to drive. The group left the Wanderlust club at approximately 1:46am, and Ms Facer drove them all to a house in Spence.
During the car trip, the…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2021] ACTSC 165
Case: [2021] ACTSC 165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender, Jordan Knight, has pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court heard the case and deliberated on the appropriate sentence, considering various factors such as the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, the plea of guilty, time spent in custody, and the sentences of co-offenders. The court found that the threshold for imprisonment had been passed and decided on a sentence that would ensure parity with co-offenders while taking into account the offender's personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation.

Justice Mossop considered the starting point for the sentence to be 15 months' imprisonment, reduced to 11 months and seven days due to the offender's early plea of guilty. However, given the offender's suitability for an intensive correction order (ICO), the court decided to impose the sentence by way of intensive correction, which would allow for addressing issues such as gambling, drug use, and possibly mental health during the period of supervision. The sentence was backdated by one day to account for the time already spent in custody. In addition to the ICO, the court imposed a combination sentence for the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which included a fine of $800, a good behaviour order for 12 months, a probation condition for 12 months or a shorter period as determined by the Director-General, and a requirement to perform 50 hours of community service.

The final orders of the court were as follows: on the charge of aggravated burglary, the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 11 months and seven days to be served by intensive correction. On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the offender is convicted, fined $800 with three months to pay, required to enter into a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months with a probation condition for a period of 12 months or a shorter period as determined by the Director-General, and required to perform 50 hours of community service.

Orders