R v Knight - [2021] ACTSC 164

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Knight
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 165
Hearing Date:	20 July 2021
Decision Date:	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

1. 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

2. 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 offender spoke…

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 164
Case: [2021] ACTSC 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Crown prosecuted Jordan Knight on charges of aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court heard the case and was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the principle of parity among co-offenders. The court also needed to consider the plea of guilty and any mitigating factors.

Justice Mossop considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which were in the lower to mid-range for aggravated burglary and in the low to mid-range for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offender's subjective circumstances were also taken into account, including his young age, limited criminal history, early guilty plea, positive relationships, and employment history. The court also considered the sentences imposed on co-offenders, which were deemed lenient, and the need for parity among them. The court found that the threshold for imprisonment under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) had been passed.

In light of the offender's personal circumstances, good prospects of rehabilitation, and suitability for an intensive correction order (ICO), the court decided that the offender should serve his sentence by way of intensive correction for the charge of aggravated burglary. For the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the court imposed a combination sentence involving a fine, a good behaviour order, and a requirement to perform community service. The sentence was backdated by one day to take into account the period already spent in custody.

The final orders of the court were that the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 11 months and 7 days to be served by intensive correction for the charge of aggravated burglary, and 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 such shorter period as determined by the Director-General, and required to perform 50 hours of community service for the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Orders