R v Lau - [2020] ACTSC 120

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lau
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 120
Hearing Date:	31 January 2020
DecisionDate:	12 February 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [18]–[22]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trial by judge alone – one count of aggravated robbery by joint commission – one count of aggravated burglary by joint commission – consideration of personal and general deterrence – poor prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 312, 45A
Cases Cited:	R v Lau; R v Lutze [2019] ACTSC 353 R v Lutze [2020] ACTSC 121
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) William Brian Lau (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (20 January 2020); M Lucero (12 February 2020) (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 92 of 2019

BURNS J:

William Lau, on 12 December 2019 you were found guilty, by myself, after a trial by judge alone of two offence. The first offence (CC 2019/3423) is an offence of aggravated burglary by joint commission, contrary to s 312 of the

Criminal Code 2012
(ACT) (the Criminal Code) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $320,000, or both.

The second offence is an offence of aggravated robbery by joint commission

(CC 2019/3880), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code by virtue of

s 45A of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of

25 years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $400,000, or both.

I note that with regard to the period that you have spent in custody with respect to the two charges which are before me today, you were arrested on these charges on

15 December 2018, and you have remained in custody since. However, on 12 August 2019 you were sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court to imprisonment from

12 November 2018 to 11 February 2020 on unrelated charges. I have been provided with copies of the charges and the Statement of Facts that were before the

ACT Magistrates Court when you were sentenced, and I will return to that in a moment.

The facts

My findings of fact are set out in my reasons of 12 December 2019 in which I found the offences proved: R v Lau; R v Lutze [2019] ACTSC 353. In summary, I am satisfied that on 15 December 2019, you and your co-offender, Simon Lutze, entered residential premises in Dunlop, ACT, as trespassers, with the joint intention of stealing property from those premises. You were confronted by an occupant and a screwdriver was produced by your co-offender. It was used to intimidate the victim into letting the two of you leave the premises in possession of stolen property and to desist from seeking help from a passer-by. This aggravated burglary occurred at about 1:30 pm, at a time when there were two…

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 Lau

Details

AGLC: R v Lau [2020] ACTSC 120
Case: [2020] ACTSC 120
Decision Date: 12 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lau v The Queen, the defendant was charged with one count of aggravated robbery by joint commission and one count of aggravated burglary by joint commission. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The legal issues before the court were the consideration of personal and general deterrence, as well as the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, in the context of the crimes committed by joint commission.

The court began by considering the nature and gravity of the offences, which involved violence and a high degree of premeditation. It noted that the defendant, although not the primary perpetrator, played a significant role in the commission of the crimes. The court then examined the principles of personal and general deterrence, weighing the need to protect the community against similar offences in the future against the potential for reform and rehabilitation of the defendant. The court also took into account the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were deemed poor due to a history of criminal behaviour and limited prospects for successful reintegration into society.

The court concluded that, given the seriousness of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the limited prospects for rehabilitation, an appropriate sentence would be a period of imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This sentence reflected the need to balance the interests of justice with the potential for the defendant to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

The final orders of the court included the sentence of nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years, as well as other standard orders such as the imposition of a fine and a requirement to pay reparations to the victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]–[22]

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.