R v Le Clair; R v Yeboah - [2016] ACTSC 126

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Le Clair; R v Yeboah
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 126
Hearing Date:	29 April 2016
DecisionDate:	25 May 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [65]-[70]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offences against the person – unlawful confinement – drug offences – trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – co-offenders – pleas of guilty – sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 34 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(5)
Cases Cited:	R v Dalton; R v Fleet [2014] ACTSC 204 R v Eimerl [2015] ACTSC 72 R v Le Clair [2016] ACTSC 79 R v O'Brien [2014] ACTSC 156 R v Rogers [ 2014] ACTSC 124 R v Thompson [2015] ACTSC 69 R v Walters [2014] ACTSC 225 Stott v R [2012] ACTCA 33
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Le Clair (Offender) David Yeboah (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr A Doig (Mr Le Clair) Mr R Thomas (Mr Yeboah)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Mr Le Clair) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Mr Yeboah)
File Numbers:	SCC 170 of 2014 (Mr Le Clair); SCC 169 of 2014 (Mr Yeboah)

BURNS J:

David Yeboah and Michael Le Clair, you are both charged by a joint indictment dated 1 October 2014. The first charge on that indictment alleged that you unlawfully confined Toby Letham on or about 28 December 2013. You both entered pleas of guilty to this charge. The second charge alleged that you, Mr Yeboah, trafficked in a trafficable quantity of cannabis between 28 December 2013 and 24 January 2014. You have entered a plea of guilty to this charge. The third charge alleged that you, Mr Le Clair, trafficked in a trafficable quantity of cannabis between 28 December 2013 and 24 January 2014. You have pleaded guilty to this charge.

The offence of unlawful confinement is contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The offence of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis is an offence contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $140,000, or both.

You both appeared in the Magistrates Court and, following pleas of not guilty, this matter was committed for trial to this Court on 31 July 2014 with respect to the three charges. Two of those charges you both ultimately entered pleas of guilty to. The third charge, being assault occasioning actual bodily harm, did not form part of the indictment of 1 October 2014. You both entered pleas of guilty to the charge of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis on 15 June last year. You both then entered pleas of guilty to the offence of forcible confinement on 18 June last year, which was the first day the matter was listed for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Le Clair; R v Yeboah and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] ACTSC 126
Decision Date: 25 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two individuals, Le Clair and Yeboah, faced the court in relation to a series of offences that included unlawful confinement and drug trafficking. The case was heard in the relevant court, which had to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants following their pleas of guilty. Le Clair was found guilty of one count of unlawful confinement and one count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis, while Yeboah was found guilty of one count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The legal issues the court had to resolve included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to the offences, the need to consider the individual circumstances of each defendant, and the necessity to balance the gravity of the offences with the defendants' personal circumstances.

The court considered various factors, including the severity and circumstances of the offences, the defendants' criminal history, and the impact on the victims. It also took into account the defendants' guilty pleas, which may have warranted a discount in the sentence. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences, particularly the unlawful confinement which had a significant impact on the victim. However, it also recognised the defendants' cooperation and remorse. After weighing these factors, the court determined the appropriate sentences for each defendant, ensuring that they reflected the seriousness of the offences while also considering the individual circumstances of Le Clair and Yeboah.

The court sentenced Le Clair to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence. Yeboah was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the court considering his lesser role in the unlawful confinement offence. The sentences were designed to reflect the gravity of the offences and to provide appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [65]-[70]

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.