CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – common assault – parity – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – significant criminal history
On 28 January 2017, Steven Dean Lockwood (the offender) was found guilty by a jury of an offence of aggravated burglary by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) per s 312 of the Criminal Code. The jury could not reach a verdict on the second count of the indictment, which was an offence of wounding pursuant to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine, or both.
Also before me is a matter transferred from the Magistrates Court, being an offence of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Facts
The High…
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 Lockwood
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288
Case
[2018] ACTSC 288
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of R v Lockwood was heard and determined. The defendant, Lockwood, was charged with aggravated burglary and common assault. The Crown alleged that the defendant entered a residence unlawfully, assaulted the occupant, and stole items from the premises. Lockwood contested the charges, and the matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Lockwood guilty on both counts. The trial judge was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence.
The legal issues before the court included assessing the severity of the offences, Lockwood's criminal history, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The Crown argued for a substantial custodial sentence due to the nature of the offences and Lockwood's past criminal conduct. In contrast, the defence submitted that Lockwood had shown some potential for rehabilitation and that a lesser sentence would be appropriate. The court needed to balance these considerations in determining an appropriate sentence.
The court considered the nature of the offences, which involved violence and a breach of the sanctity of the home. It also took into account Lockwood's extensive criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. The court noted that Lockwood had shown some capacity for rehabilitation but emphasised the need for significant deterrence given the seriousness of the current offences. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an imprisonment sentence was necessary, with a focus on rehabilitation and deterrence. The final orders, including the specific sentence, were detailed in the judgment at [66].