R v Lowe - [2015] ACTSC 116

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lowe
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 116
Hearing Date:	4 May 2015
DecisionDate:	4 May 2015
Before:	Walmsley AJ
Decision:	See [32]-[34]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence – particular offences – offences against the person – aggravated robbery – offensive weapon – wounding – breach of good behaviour order.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 21 Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 107(1), 108, 108(2)(a), 110 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310(b)
Cases Cited:	R v Billington [2014] ACTSC 350
Texts Cited:	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (2000) (DSM-5)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Delilah Lowe (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K MacKenzie (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 31 of 2015; 32 of 2015

Walmsley AJ:

Introduction

The offender, Delilah Lowe, who was born in August 1992, pleaded guilty to and is to be sentenced for the offences of aggravated robbery and intentional wounding. The offence of aggravated robbery is one contrary to s 310(b) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. The offence of intentional wounding, which is one contrary to s 21 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

At the time of the offences, which occurred on 27 October 2014, the offender was on three good behaviour orders which had been imposed by the Magistrates Court of the ACT. Two of those orders were imposed on 22 April 2014, each being for an offence of taking a prohibited thing into a correctional centre; the thing in each case being a small quantity of drugs. At the time when the aggravated robbery and the intentional wounding were committed, each good behaviour order had been in force for six months.

The offender was also on a good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court on 26 June 2014. That order was for the offence of failing to display P-plates. As with the other two, it was a 12 month good behaviour order. At the time of the offences for which I am to sentence her, it had been in force for four months.

Factual Background to the Offences

The facts of the two matters for which I am to sentence the offender were these. At about 8.30 am on Monday 27 October 2014 the complainant, Mr Steven Morey, was working as a taxi driver. He picked up the offender from a taxi rank in Woden. She asked him to take her to Red Hill and gave him some directions. The taxi arrived at a laneway between Cygnet Crescent and Beagle Street in Red Hill. At that point the driver was asked to stop the taxi in a car park off the laneway. The offender handed the driver her mobile telephone and asked him to wait while she got some money to pay his fare. She then left him and walked…

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 Lowe

Details

AGLC: R v Lowe [2015] ACTSC 116
Case: [2015] ACTSC 116
Decision Date: 4 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lowe was heard before the court, where the defendant was charged with various offences including aggravated robbery, use of an offensive weapon, and wounding. The defendant had a history of non-compliance with court orders, having previously breached a good behaviour order. The case centred on whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the order and, if so, the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court was required to balance the defendant's criminal history and the severity of the current offences against the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues the court had to address included whether the defendant had indeed breached the previous good behaviour order and, if so, the extent of that breach. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the current offences, taking into account the defendant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offences. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing for aggravated robbery and the use of an offensive weapon, as well as the need to impose a sentence that would effectively deter the defendant from future criminal conduct.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence of the defendant's breach of the good behaviour order and found that the defendant had indeed violated the terms of that order. The court then proceeded to assess the current charges, finding that the defendant's actions warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences, particularly the use of an offensive weapon and the harm caused to the victim. The court also noted the defendant's history of non-compliance with court orders, which was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that a substantial custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the goals of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the community.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details of the sentence length and conditions outlined in the judgment. The court also noted that the defendant's previous breaches of court orders and the nature of the current offences warranted a sentence that would effectively address the defendant's criminal behaviour and protect the community from further harm. The final orders included specific directions for the defendant's imprisonment and conditions to be imposed during and after the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [32]-[34]

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.