R v Lindley-Jones - [2014] ACTSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lindley-Jones
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 296
Hearing Date(s):	23 September 2014
DecisionDate:	23 September 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	25 months’ imprisonment, 14 month nonparole period.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – early guilty plea – aggravated burglary – armed with an offensive weapon – significant criminal history – discount of 25% for early plea of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 ss 7, 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 116 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Rubino (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 16 December 2013)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Forrester Lindley-Jones (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (Crown) Mr J De Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 113 of 2014; SCC 112 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

The offender adheres to a plea of guilty entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity to the offence that, on 27 February 2014, he committed an aggravated burglary in that he remained within a building with intent to cause harm (s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)). The aggravating feature is that he was armed with a knife. The offence carries a maximum available penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

I take into account on sentence an additional offence of destroying or damaging property (s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)). This offence carries a maximum available penalty of two years' imprisonment.

The offender has been in custody since his arrest on the day of the offence and the sentence should date from that day.

The facts

At about 12.20 pm on Thursday, 27 February 2014, the offender was at his residence which was close to that of the complainant. The offender knew the complainant and the complainant's adult son.

The offender awoke in the middle of the day and formed the opinion that the complainant's son had stolen his shoulder bag. It contained money and Xanax tablets. He became very upset.

He went to the premises of the complainant and his son. From the backyard, he began to yell, demanding the return of $500 and his Xanax tablets.

He then bashed on a security screen door at least a dozen times, yelling out comments such as, "Come out. Come out. We can work something out." When the door would not yield to him, he said that he was coming in through the window. He proceeded to do so, smashing the kitchen window and entering the premises.

The complainant armed himself with a large walking stick. The offender entered the living room, where the complainant was located. By that stage, the offender had armed himself by picking up a kitchen knife. He must have obtained it when he passed through the kitchen in order to enter the living room. The knife in question had a…

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 Lindley-Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Lindley-Jones [2014] ACTSC 296
Case: [2014] ACTSC 296
Decision Date: 23 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent against his sentence, following a conviction for aggravated burglary. The respondent was found guilty of entering a home armed with an offensive weapon. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal challenged the length of the custodial sentence, specifically the determination of the non-parole period.

The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the discount for an early plea of guilty and the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to consider the respondent’s criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the principles of sentencing for aggravated burglary. The court also needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the discount for the early guilty plea.

In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court noted the respondent’s significant criminal history and the seriousness of the offence. The court considered that the discount for the early guilty plea should be 25%, as provided by statute. After weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was 25 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months. The court found that this sentence balanced the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, with the appropriate discount for the early plea of guilty. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made an order confirming the sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

25 months’ imprisonment, 14 month nonparole period.

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.