R v Ledger - [2016] ACTSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ledger
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 103
Hearing Date:	27 May 2021
Decision Date:	27 May 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to a three-year good behaviour order with additional conditions.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –
Attempted arson
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 404
Cases Cited:	R v King [2016] ACTSC 191
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Phillip Ledger (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Lee (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Self-represented (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 43 of 2021
MURRELL CJ:
Introduction

1. The offender pleaded guilty to one count of attempted arson, contrary to ss 404 and 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $240,000, 15 years' imprisonment, or both.
2. The offender entered a plea of guilty on the third mention in the Magistrates Court. The Crown case was strong, but that was partly because of admissions that the offender had made to the police. Pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), I will allow a discount of 25 per cent of the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed.

Facts

3.       As at 2019, the offender had been employed at Hiway Concrete in Hume, ACT for about five years. Mr Spencer is the owner of Highway Concrete.
4.       On 18 November 2019, the offender telephoned Mr Spencer, and questioned Mr Spencer about how he would survive over the Christmas period without pay. Mr
Spencer suggested that they catch up and “try to sort it out”. The offender responded

abusively, demanding better treatment from Mr Spencer. The offender announced that
he would terminate his employment on the following Friday.
5.       That evening, the offender sent Mr Spencer a text message complaining about the lack of a pay rise, and saying:
[W]ot goes around will come around … [sic]
6.       At about 3:30 PM on Sunday 22 December 2019, the offender attended the premises of Hiway Concrete. He threw flammable liquid from a container onto and around a 2015 Kenworth T359 truck that was owned by Mr Spencer and used in his Hiway Concrete business. The offender then threw the container down next to the truck and ignited the liquid.
7.       The resulting fire burned the grass around the truck in an area of approximately 20 metres by 5 metres, but the truck itself did not ignite.
8.       The offender drove away without attempting to extinguish the fire. ACT Fire and Rescue were called to extinguish it.
9.       CCTV footage showed the offender committing the offence and driving past the site on three occasions as bystanders attempted to extinguish the fire.
10.     At the time of the offence, there was a total fire ban in the ACT.
11.     On 23 December 2019, police attended the offender's residence. The offender agreed to participate in…

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 Ledger

Details

AGLC: R v Ledger [2016] ACTSC 191
Case: [2016] ACTSC 191
Decision Date: 27 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ledger, the defendant, Ledger, faced the court on charges related to criminal activities. The specifics of the crime were not detailed in the text but pertained to criminal conduct warranting judicial consideration. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court of criminal jurisdiction.

The court had to address several legal issues, primarily concerning the appropriate sentencing for the defendant. Given the nature of the charges, the court was tasked with determining a suitable punishment that aligned with legal standards and precedents. The key issue was whether the punishment should be punitive or rehabilitative, considering the defendant’s background and the circumstances of the offence.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision. It examined the severity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential impact of different sentencing options on both the defendant and society. Ultimately, the court opted for a sentence that included a three-year good behaviour order, accompanied by additional conditions. This decision reflected a balanced approach, aiming to address the crime while providing opportunities for rehabilitation.

The court's final orders mandated that the defendant adhere to the specified conditions of the good behaviour order for the duration of the three years. This sentence sought to deter future criminal behaviour while promoting the defendant's reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to a three-year good behaviour order

with additional conditions.

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.