R v Lutze

[2020] ACTSC 121

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Lutze

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 121

Hearing Date:

31 January 2020

DecisionDate:

12 February 2020

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [20]–[23]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trial by judge alone – one count of aggravated robbery by joint commission – one count of aggravated burglary by joint commission – consideration of personal deterrence – reasonable prospects for rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 312, 45A

Cases Cited:

R v Lau; R v Lutze [2019] ACTSC 353

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Simon Lutze (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

P Dixon (31 January 2020); M Lucero (12 February 2020) (Crown)

J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 91 of 2019

BURNS J:

1. Simon Lutze, on 12 December 2019 you were found guilty by myself, after a trial by judge alone, of two offences. The first offence is an offence of aggravated burglary by joint commission (CC 2019/3427), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $320,000, or both.

1. The second offence was one of aggravated robbery by joint commission

   
   

   (CC 2019/3876), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code by virtue of

   
   

   s 45A of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of

   
   

   25 years’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $400,000, or both. 

The facts

1. My findings of fact are set out in my reasons of 12 December 2019, finding the offences proved: R v Lau; R v Lutze [2019] ACTSC 353.

1. In summary, I am satisfied that on 15 December 2018, you and your co-offender, William Lau, entered residential premises in Dunlop, ACT, as trespasses with the joint intention of stealing property from the premises. This aggravated burglary occurred at about 1:30 pm, at a time when there were two people inside the premises. You were subsequently confronted by one of the occupants of the premises. I will turn to what occurred in those circumstances shortly.

1. I see no reason to distinguish between you and your co-offender with regard to your individual involvement in the offence of aggravated burglary. I accept that the offence was opportunistic and not subject to any real planning or premeditation. I assess this as being in the lower range of such offences.

1. Turning to the offence of aggravated robbery, I note that the weapon employed was a screwdriver, sharpened so as to effectively be a spike. It is a weapon capable of causing serious and perhaps, potentially lethal, injury. It is not, however, as obviously lethal a weapon as, for example, a loaded firearm or a sharp knife.  

1. You were the person who first produced the screwdriver. It was used to intimidate the victim into letting you leave the premises with the stolen property and…