R v KX - [2020] ACTSC 349

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v KX
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 349
Hearing Date:	16 December 2020
Decision Date:	16 December 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [57]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – two counts of aggravated robbery by joint commission – robberies of retail stores – below mid range and mid range of objective seriousness – aiding and abetting an aggravated robbery – robbery of a residential premises – mid range of objective seriousness – young offender – disadvantaged background – no criminal record – high risk of reoffending – access to community supports – sentence of imprisonment – good behaviour orders
imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 133G Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 45A, 310 Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 74M
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
KX (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
S Janackovic (Crown)
J Cooper (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 126 of 2020
SCC 146 of 2020 SCC 147 of 2020
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The offender, who is a young person, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery by joint commission, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 45A. He has also pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting an aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45. The maximum penalty
for these offences is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.

Facts and objective seriousness

2. The facts are identified in an agreed Statement of Facts which was admitted without objection. The Crown also tendered CCTV of the first and second robberies. In submissions counsel for the offender made some reference to exculpatory statements made by the offender to the authors of the pre-sentence report but I have not placed weight on those statements as they are uncorroborated and untested assertions made by the offender and I am not satisfied that they are reliable. In summary, the facts and my assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence is as follows.

3 November 2018 – aggravated robbery by joint commission

3. On 3 November 2018 at approximately 9:10am the offender and an unknown person entered a jewellery store in Holt. The owner of the store, who I will refer to as BQ, and his employee, who I will refer to as IX, were both present. The unknown co-offender pulled a black cloth over his face and was holding a knife.
4. The offender placed his hand on the glass countertop, which was near the staff entrance, and jumped over the counter. Once he was behind the counter the offender opened the glass display cabinet and took items of jewellery valued at $3048. Meanwhile, the unknown co-offender directed BQ to lie down on the ground and IX to open the safe, while waving his knife. The unknown co-offender removed…

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 KX

Details

AGLC: R v KX [2020] ACTSC 349
Case: [2020] ACTSC 349
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The offender, KX, a young person, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery by joint commission and one count of aiding and abetting an aggravated robbery. The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, the offender's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing young offenders. The court assessed the objective seriousness of each offence, taking into account the level of planning, the use of weapons, and the impact on the victims. The court also considered the offender's disadvantaged background, lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. In light of the statutory provisions relating to sentences imposed on young people and the fact that this was the offender's first time being sentenced for offending, the court decided to impose lenient sentences. The court sentenced the offender to a conviction and a good behaviour order for the first offence, a sentence of imprisonment for the second offence which had already been served, and a conviction and good behaviour order for the third offence. The court emphasised that the leniency afforded in these sentences would be unlikely to be afforded for any further offending.

Orders