R v Lawrence (No 2) - [2025] ACTSC 379

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lawrence (No 2)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 379
Hearing Date:	26 August 2025
Decision Date:	26 August 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the good behaviour order arising from the orders of the court made on 9 February 2022 is cancelled and the offender is resentenced on the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 2719/2015) to a sentence of imprisonment of two years, starting on 26 June 2025 and ending on 25 June 2027, which is suspended forthwith upon entry into an undertaking to comply
with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes
(Sentence Administration) Act for a period of 22 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –
breach of good behaviour order by further offending involving
flagrant dishonesty – offending driven by drug addiction and homelessness – reimposition of good behaviour order not opposed by prosecution – supervision condition would set offender up to fail – appropriate to maintain hope of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 107, 110
Cases Cited:	R v Lawrence [2022] ACTSC 19
Parties:	The Queen
Tiffany Laurena Lee Lawrence (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
J Churchill (Crown) S Lynch (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 240 of 2021
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. On 9 February 2022, Elkaim J sentenced the offender, Tiffany Laurena Lee Lawrence,
to two years’ imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery (CAN 2719/2015), and
resentenced her for breaches of a previous good behaviour order: R v Lawrence [2022]
ACTSC 19. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for an aggravated robbery was
25 years. The sentence for aggravated robbery was partially suspended from
6 June 2022, on the condition that the offender enter a good behaviour order for a period
of 18 months.
2. On 8 July 2025, the offender was convicted and sentenced in the Galambany Circle
Sentencing Court in relation to 12 offences committed between April 2023 and
28 February 2024, including:

(a) two counts of possessing a knife without reasonable excuse (CAN 3478/2023,
CAN 9991/2023);

(b) two counts of obtaining property by deception (CAN 6710/2023,
CAN 8042/2023);

(c) two counts of minor theft (CAN 6711/2023, CAN 8041/2023);
(d) four counts of trespass (CAN 8627/2023, CAN 8038/2023, CAN 8039/2023,
CAN 8044/2023);

(e) one count of failing to appear after a bail undertaking (CAN 9993/2023); and
(f) one count of damaging property (CAN 2439/2024).
3. As a result of these convictions, the offender was in breach of the suspended sentence
and good behaviour order made by Elkaim J on 9 February 2022. A magistrate
committed the offender to the Supreme Court to deal with this breach, pursuant to s 107
of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act).

Facts
4.	The facts relevant to the sentence imposed by Elkaim J are summarised in his Honour’s
reasons…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 19
Case: [2025] ACTSC 379
Decision Date: 26 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lawrence (No 2) was heard before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, where the offender, Lawrence, was appealing his sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery. The legal proceedings centred on the appropriateness and fairness of the initial sentence and the subsequent good behaviour order imposed on him. Lawrence contended that the sentence was excessive and not aligned with the principles of proportionality and justice, necessitating a review and potential resentencing.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the original sentence was unjust and warranted a revision under the applicable legislative framework. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 1997 (ACT) and whether the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the offence. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the good behaviour order was appropriate and if the resentencing should involve a different form of punishment.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented, concluded that the initial sentence was indeed disproportionate. The court noted that while the offence was serious, the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. The court found that a suspended sentence with an undertaking to comply with certain conditions was a more appropriate form of punishment, ensuring that the offender would be held accountable while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court cancelled the good behaviour order and imposed a new sentence of imprisonment for two years, which is suspended upon the offender entering into an undertaking to comply with specific conditions.

The court's final order was to cancel the existing good behaviour order and to resendence the offender to a term of imprisonment of two years, which is suspended on the condition that Lawrence complies with an undertaking to adhere to certain terms and conditions. This decision reflects the court's emphasis on the principles of proportionality, justice, and the potential for rehabilitation in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act

2005 (ACT), the good behaviour order arising from the orders of

the court made on 9 February 2022 is cancelled and the

offender is resentenced on the charge of aggravated robbery

(CAN 2719/2015) to a sentence of imprisonment of two years,

starting on 26 June 2025 and ending on 25 June 2027, which is

suspended forthwith upon entry into an undertaking to comply

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.

(c)	two counts of minor theft (CAN 6711/2023, CAN 8041/2023);
(d)	four counts of trespass (CAN 8627/2023, CAN 8038/2023, CAN 8039/2023,

(e)	one count of failing to appear after a bail undertaking (CAN 9993/2023); and
(f)	one count of damaging property (CAN 2439/2024).