Legal Research
Cases
R v Lovelock

R v Lovelock

Case [2020] ACTSC 376 9 December 2020

Attempted Aggravated Robbery

Dishonestly Taking a Motor Vehicle Without the Owner’s Consent

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lovelock
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 376
Hearing Date(s):	4 December 2020
DecisionDate:	9 December 2020
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Daniel Mark Lovelock be convicted of attempted robbery and be sentenced to three years imprisonment, to commence on 24 June 2020. 2. Mr Lovelock be convicted of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 23 March 2023. 3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Mr Lovelock to commence today, 9 December 2020, for a period of two years for the offence of attempted aggravated robbery, the primary offence. 4. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be extended to the offence of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, being an associated offence. 5. It be noted that convictions for the primary offence and associated offences have been recorded and sentences for them imposed, which convictions and sentences are hereby incorporated in the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order as the custodial part. 6. The total sentence of 3 years and 9 months, being the total of the sentences for the primary and associated offences, be suspended from today, 9 December 2020, under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period from 9 December 2020 to 23 March 2024. 7. Daniel Mark Lovelock be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period from 9 December 2022 until 23 March 2024, with a probation condition that he accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the Good Behaviour Order or such lesser period as the person supervising him deems appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person including, but not limited to, counselling, treatment and urinalysis. 8. For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, Mr Lovelock be required to comply with the core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the term of the Order and complete such treatment program and urinalysis as may be required by a member of the Treatment Order team from time to time, or as ordered by the Court. 9. Mr Lovelock be directed to attend Court on Friday 11 December 2020 at 11:30 am
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent – attempted aggravated robbery – Sentencing for attempt offences - Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made – Rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 46J, 7, 12A, 46K, 80W, 80Y; Table 46K Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Ch 6 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44(9), 310, 318(1)
Cases Cited:

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 Lovelock

Details

AGLC: R v Lovelock [2020] ACTSC 376
Case: [2020] ACTSC 376
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a conviction for attempted aggravated robbery and for the offence of dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing principles articulated in previous cases provided an appropriate framework for sentencing Mr Lovelock. The Court found that the sentencing principles, while persuasive, were not binding. The Court also found that the objective and subjective circumstances of Mr Lovelock's offending warranted a severe sentence. The Court concluded that the seriousness of the offence, Mr Lovelock's lengthy criminal history and his drug dependency warranted a sentence that was punitive and that would provide general and specific deterrence. The Court sentenced Mr Lovelock to a total of three years and nine months imprisonment, which was suspended for a period of three and a half years. The Court also made a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for a period of two years.

Orders