R v Le (No 1) - [2014] ACTSC 71

ACT SUPREME COURT

Case Title:	R v LE (No 1)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 71
Hearing Date:	9 April 2014
DecisionDate:	9 April 2014
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [12]–[13]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – SENTENCE – deferred sentence order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 118
Parties:	The Queen LE
Representation: - Counsel	Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr A Doig (Defence)
- Solicitors	ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Defence)
File Number:	SCC 205 of 2013

R v LE (No 1)
DEFERRED SENTENCE ORDER

The offender is before me to be sentenced in respect of an aggravated robbery (s 310 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)) to which he entered a plea of guilty on 2 December 2013.
I am going to impose a Deferred Sentence Order. I will impose one, initially, for a period of six months and I will then have the matter brought back before me just to keep an eye on how he is progressing. It may be that depending upon how things have developed I may impose a further Deferred Sentence Order because he is going to have to demonstrate a significant period of compliance with community-based orders before I am willing to impose a sentence other than immediate imprisonment.
Would you stand for a moment, please, LE? You will have gathered from what has just been spoken between myself and counsel at the bar table that I propose dealing with your matter by way of a Deferred Sentence Order. That means that I will record a conviction against you on the charge and I will then defer passing sentence for a period. Initially, that will be for a period of six months.
I will place you on bail. There will be conditions of the bail and I expect that you will comply with the conditions of the bail. I have very little tolerance in matters such as this for people who do not comply with their bail conditions.
As I said earlier to your counsel, Mr Doig, there are some dangers in proceeding in this way and particularly in your case. You were dealt with in 2010 in the Childrens Court for offences, including aggravated burglary. You were dealt with very leniently on that occasion and no conviction was recorded.
It sometimes happens in those circumstances that offenders think, essentially, that they have got away with it and that nothing has happened to them. There has been no penalty imposed so they think that the courts are not willing to take action to punish them.
Now, I do not know whether you went away from the Childrens Court proceedings with that sort of attitude. The fact that you have subsequently reoffended in such a serious way, however, causes me great concern in that regard.
I want you to understand that if you go away from these proceedings on this Deferred Sentence Order, with the view that you have done it again, that you…

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 Le (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Le (No 1) [2014] ACTSC 71
Case: [2014] ACTSC 71
Decision Date: 9 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Le (No 1) involves the sentencing of a defendant, Le, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence committed. Le had no prior convictions and had shown remorse for the incident, which was a significant factor in the sentencing deliberations.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing options available under the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, the protection of the community, and the personal circumstances of Le. The key question was whether a deferred sentence order, which allows the defendant to avoid a criminal record if certain conditions are met, would be appropriate in this case.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community, but also recognised the mitigating factors such as Le's lack of criminal history and the genuine remorse shown. The court ultimately determined that a deferred sentence order was suitable, as it would provide Le with an opportunity to rehabilitate without the long-term stigma of a criminal conviction. The court imposed a two-year order, during which Le must comply with specific conditions, including attending a rehabilitation program and refraining from further offending.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a deferred sentence order for a period of two years, with conditions to be met by Le. These conditions were detailed in the judgment and were intended to support Le's rehabilitation and deter future offending. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [12]–[13]

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.