R v Lawson

[2020] ACTSC 336

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lawson
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 336
Hearing Date:	25 November 2020
Decision Date:	25 November 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [11]–[15]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – receiving stolen property – plea of guilty – consideration of criminal history – motive unclear
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 133
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brett Anthony Lawson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
S Janackovic (Crown)
A Byrnes (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Andrew Byrnes Law Group (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 232 of 2020
BURNS J:

1. Brett Lawson, you have entered a plea of guilty to one charge of receiving stolen property, contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for

that offence is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.

2.       An Agreed Statement of Facts has been tendered. I will not recite the Agreed Statement of Facts. The property which is the subject of the charge is a bobcat excavator of an estimated value of $35,000. In determining the objective seriousness of this particular offence, I take into account the significant value of the item which was the subject of the charge. I also take into account the fact that the evidence suggests that it was only in your possession for a very short period of time.

3.       In a Record of Interview in which you participated with ACT Police, you gave a version of events as to how you came to be in possession of that item. I do not accept the version that you gave in the course of that interview. For one thing, it has not been the subject of any sworn evidence on your behalf.

4.       Secondly, one of the reasons that you put forward for your involvement in the possession of the bobcat was that you were assisting New South Wales Police in obtaining illegally possessed firearms in the ACT.

5.       The New South Wales Police Officer that you nominated as being the person that you were working with has been contacted by ACT Police and has denied any knowledge of the circumstances of any such arrangement. Thus, a significant part of the explanation given by you in the course of the Record of Interview has not been established in the course of investigations by police. As I say, I do not give any weight to the explanation that you gave in the course of that interview.

6.       It was submitted on your behalf that there is no evidence that you were in possession of the item for any form of monetary gain, and that, in fact, is the truth. I do note however that you, through your counsel, have admitted to methamphetamine use at about that time and there is also some suggestion of mental health issues. Whether the mental health issues preceded the use of methamphetamine or are the consequence of the use of methamphetamine, I do not know, because I simply do not have any evidence before me regarding either your drug use or any mental health issues from which you may suffer. As such, in the absence of any evidence from you, I am simply not in a position to determine what motive you may have had for being in possession of the bobcat.

7.       I accept the submission that was made by Mr Byrnes on your behalf that this falls in the low to mid-range of offences of this nature. I further accept the proposition that the offence calls for a term of imprisonment.

8.       I take into account the material which has been filed by the prosecution, including the criminal history. I take into account the criminal history, not in order to increase the penalty that is appropriate with respect to the present offence, but in order to determine to what extent you may be entitled to leniency based upon your prior history. Sadly, there is little by way of lenience that can be shown to you because of that history.

9.       I am told that there are currently warrants outstanding for you in New South Wales. I mention that purely for the purpose of indicating that you will not be able to be released immediately after I have sentenced you today because the prosecution, as I understand it, will be seeking your extradition to New South Wales so that you can be dealt with, with respect to the charges in that state.

10.     As I indicated in argument with Mr Byrnes, I propose to proceed to sentence you by ignoring the charges in New South Wales, and sentence you, as I think is appropriate, with respect to the present charge. I am going to impose a partially suspended sentence. The effect of the sentence that I impose will be that you will be entitled to be released on a Good Behaviour Order today, 25 November 2020, but as I have indicated to you, whether you are ultimately able to be released today depends upon what happens with regards to any extradition proceedings relating to the charges in New South Wales.

Sentence

11.     I take into account your plea of guilty. It was not entered at the earliest opportunity, but I will nevertheless reduce by approximately 20 per cent the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed.

12.    I record a conviction on the charge of knowingly receiving stolen property

(CC 7923/2020), and you will be sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment, which I

have reduced from nine months because of your plea of guilty.

13.     Taking into account the desirability of trying to craft a sentence that takes into account the period of time that you have already spent in custody with regard to the offences of burglary and theft, the sentence will commence on 29 September 2020, and will expire on 28 April 2021.

14.     The period from 29 September 2020 until 24 November 2020 is to be served by way of full-time imprisonment. The balance will be suspended and there will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months from today, 25 November 2020, on condition that:

a)	firstly, that you accept the supervision of the Director-General responsible for ACT Corrective Services, or that person's delegate, and you are to obey all reasonable directions of that person or that person's delegate for that period of 18 months or such lesser a period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer;
b)	secondly, you are to forthwith travel with your father to New South Wales and reside as directed by ACT Corrective Services or its delegate in New South Wales; and
c)	thirdly, you are to undertake such assessments, counselling or treatment as directed by ACT Corrective Services or its delegates with regard to drug abuse and mental health issues.

15.    The supervision component of the Good Behaviour Order may be transferred to Corrective Services in New South Wales, but as I have said, Mr Lawson will have to await the outcome of any extradition proceedings before he is able to be released upon that Good Behaviour Order.

I certify that the preceding fifteen [15] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date: