R v Lock

Case [2016] ACTSC 319

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Lock

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 319

Hearing Date:

12 October 2016

DecisionDate:

17 October 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [29] – [35]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Particular Offences – property offences – aggravated robbery – offensive weapon – obtaining property by deception  – drive/ride motor vehicle without consent – pleas of guilty – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – terms of imprisonment imposed.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 318, 326

Cases Cited:

R v Billington [2014] ACTSC 350

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Kaine Lock (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Gul (Crown)

Ms K Musgrove (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Mark Fleming Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 161 of 2016

BURNS J:

  1. Kaine Lock, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to a number of offences. Those offences may be broadly described as occurring on two separate occasions.

Offences of 30 December 2015

  1. I will deal initially with the offences of 30 December 2015. You have pleaded guilty to the following offences on that day: one count of attempted aggravated robbery in company with Jack Ford with an offensive weapon (CC16/4540), one count of aggravated robbery in company with Jack Ford with an offensive weapon (CC16/4541), and one count of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent  (CC16/4542).

  1. You have also entered pleas of guilty to three counts of obtaining property by deception (CC16/4543, CC16/4544 and CC16/4546). Finally, you have entered pleas of guilty to two counts of aiding and abetting Jack Ford to obtain property by deception (CC16/4545 and CC16/4547).

  1. A full Statement of Facts was tendered at your sentence hearing. It is not necessary at the present time to set out those facts in their entirety. It is sufficient to note that at approximately 8.00 am on 30 December 2015, you and your co‑offender attempted to rob a member of the public, Ms Kuhn, at a petrol station in Melba armed with a knife and a replica firearm. Ms Kuhn refused your demands. Shortly after you then ran to the car park behind Melba shops. Armed with knives, you then approached another member of the public, Mr D’Elboux, as he was parking his Toyota Camry motor vehicle. You stole Mr D’Elboux's car and wallet containing a Commonwealth bankcard and used the card to purchase cigarettes, food and prepaid credit cards at several retail outlets.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) is 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $375,000 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of dishonestly driving or riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code is 5 years imprisonment, a fine of $75,000 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the…

Continue reading R v Lock

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lock [2016] ACTSC 319
Case
[2016] ACTSC 319
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lock involved the defendant, Lock, and the Crown. Lock had been charged with a series of serious criminal offences, including aggravated robbery, obtaining property by deception, and driving a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. Lock entered pleas of guilty to all charges. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offences, Lock's prospects of rehabilitation, and the principles of sentencing. The primary legal issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence that balanced the seriousness of the offences with the possibility of Lock's rehabilitation.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the gravity of the offences, Lock's criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court noted that Lock had pleaded guilty, which was a mitigating factor. However, the court also highlighted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the aggravated robbery and the use of an offensive weapon. The court examined the totality of Lock's offending behaviour and the impact on the victims. In assessing the prospect of rehabilitation, the court considered Lock's background, including any prior offending and the potential for positive change through rehabilitation programs.

After thorough consideration, the court imposed a term of imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors. The court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to provide deterrence. The court also considered the possibility of Lock's rehabilitation, aiming to strike a balance between punishment and the potential for positive change. The sentence imposed was designed to ensure public safety, provide just punishment, and offer the defendant an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for Lock, with specific terms and conditions. The court ordered that Lock be imprisoned for a period of time, to be determined by the court, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the principles of sentencing. The court also imposed additional conditions, such as participation in rehabilitation programs and supervision during any period of parole. The court's orders aimed to achieve the objectives of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, and the possibility of rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [29] – [35]

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.