R v Lawrence - [2022] ACTSC 19

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lawrence
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 19
Hearing Date(s):	9 February 2022
DecisionDate:	9 February 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – breach of good behaviour order – serious medical condition
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310
Cases Cited:	Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 5 R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214 R v Murray [2016] ACTSC 173
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Tiffany Lawrence ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 240 of 2021

Elkaim J

On 15 October 2021, Ms Lawrence pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is $400,000, imprisonment for 25 years or both.

The offence occurred a long time ago. It has not been previously dealt with because the offender either did not attend court appearances or was in custody in New South Wales. Clearly she is partly, but not entirely, to blame for the delay. The delay is a matter which I am able to take into account in today’s sentencing.

On 26 January 2015 the offender and two other persons forced their way into a house in Kambah. There was one person in the house. The offenders made demands of this person including wanting drugs. One of the offenders (not Ms Lawrence) punched the man. They also wanted the keys to his motorcycle. He handed over the keys and said that his wallet was upstairs. The offenders took credit cards from the wallet.

The victim may have been involved in drugs but that is not any sort of excuse for the actions of the offenders. Ms Lawrence was armed with the leg of a chair, it is unclear how that came to be in her possession. The resident ran out of the door and called 000. He was grabbed by one of the offenders and another hit him. Neighbours intervened to save the man. This offender had nothing to do with the assault which occurred outside the house.

The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending was at about medium. It referred to there being a trespass into a home together with a forced entry. There was a victim who was confronted by three persons one of whom had a weapon. There was both actual and threatened violence. I do not completely disagree with the Crown although my assessment is to place the offending a little below medium.

On 23 July 2015 one of the co-offenders, Mr Hodge, was sentenced by Murrell CJ to two years and eight months imprisonment for the aggravated robbery. This was after a discount of 40% arising from his plea of guilty and assistance to the authorities (R v Hodge

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence [2022] ACTSC 19
Case: [2022] ACTSC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lawrence, the offender, Tiffany Lawrence, pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated robbery. The offence occurred on 26 January 2015 when Ms Lawrence and two other persons forced their way into a house in Kambah. They demanded drugs and the keys to a motorcycle, and assaulted the resident when he tried to flee. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending was at about medium, while the court assessed it to be slightly below medium. The offender has a significant criminal record and was serving a Good Behaviour Order at the time of the offence. She has also suffered from serious medical conditions and has a history of drug use. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the aggravated robbery and the breaches of the Good Behaviour Order.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown's submission on the seriousness of the offending was appropriate, and what the appropriate sentence would be for the aggravated robbery and the breaches of the Good Behaviour Order. The court considered the principles of parity and equal justice in sentencing, and noted that the offender had a medium to high risk of general reoffending due to her drug use, mental health issues, and companions. The court also considered the offender's significant medical conditions and her efforts to address her drug use. The Crown submitted that the level of offending of Ms Lawrence compared to the co-offenders was lesser, especially when compared to Mr Hodge. However, taking into account other factors, the Crown submitted that the sentence imposed on Ms Murray was at least an appropriate starting point for this offender.

The court decided to impose a sentence of 2 years imprisonment, after applying an approximate 15% discount, for the current offence of aggravated robbery. The sentence was suspended after 6 months on condition that the offender enter a good behaviour order for a period of 18 months on core conditions. The court also re-sentenced the offender to 3 months imprisonment for the breach offence of assault and 1 month imprisonment for the breach offence of theft. The court took into account the offender's significant medical conditions and her efforts to address her drug use in deciding on the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the principles of parity and equal justice in sentencing.

The final orders made by the court were that the offender is re-sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for the breach offence of assault, to commence 7 August 2021 and end on 6 November 2021. The offender is also re-sentenced to 1 month imprisonment for the breach offence of theft, to commence on 7 November 2021 and end on 6 December 2021. For the current offence of aggravated robbery, the offender is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, after applying an approximate 15% discount, to commence 7 December 2021 to end on 6 December 2023. The above sentence is suspended after 6 months to end on 6 June 2022 on condition that the offender enter a good behaviour order for a period of 18 months on core conditions, those conditions to be applicable at the discretion of the Director General of Corrective Services.

Orders