SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v MC |
Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 128 |
Hearing Date: | 19 May 2020; 9 June 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 9 June 2020 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [20] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempt aggravated robbery – young person – general deterrence versus rehabilitation prospects |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 86 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) MC (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel C Wanigaratne (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 56 of 2020 |
ELKAIM J:
On 10 March 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted aggravated robbery (CH2019/903) in the Magistrates Court. He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentencing. The offence is contrary to s 310, by virtue of s 44, of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.
The details of the offence are set out in the Statement of Facts. In summary, on 12 September 2019, the offender and two other persons entered a Domino’s Pizza store in Kippax, just before 11:00pm. The offender was carrying a shortened double-barrelled shotgun. He was disguised. The offender pointed the gun at a store employee and also manhandled him. He asked him “where’s the money?”. He led the employee to the safe which the employee opened. The safe was emptied of $952.00. Before leaving the store the offender pointed a gun at the employee’s head while he was crouched down.
There can be little doubt that this would have been a most terrifying experience for the employee. The use of a firearm places this offence at about medium objective severity.
The offender has been in custody at the Bimberi Youth Detention Centre since 3 October 2019. This will be the starting date for the sentence of imprisonment I intend to impose. The sentence will be discounted by 20% to reflect the early plea of guilty.
The offender was born in 2002. He is almost 18. The offender is of Aboriginal descent. His family origins are in the Griffith area of New South Wales. He is very proud, as he should be, of his heritage.
Regrettably his upbringing has been marred by significant abuse and mistreatment. He has been subjected to domestic violence and sexual abuse. He has been exposed to drug and alcohol misuse in his own home. There are at least 80 child protection reports concerning his welfare. The offender’s father died in 2018. He has found it difficult to deal with this loss.
Not surprisingly the offender has had difficulty with his education. In 2015 he became involved in a program focusing on literacy, numeracy and cultural activities. He enjoyed the program. In 2019 the offender recommenced Year 10 studies and apparently did quite well. He has also been studying while in detention.
The offender started drinking…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v MC and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] ACTSC 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the specific nature of the attempted aggravated robbery. It considered the defendant's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation, alongside the need for general deterrence to prevent similar offences in the future. The court also evaluated the defendant's level of involvement in the offence, their previous criminal history, and their prospects for reform. The decision required a nuanced approach to sentencing that balanced the objectives of punishment and rehabilitation.
The court ultimately determined that while the offence was serious, the defendant's young age and potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court found that a custodial sentence would not be appropriate, given the defendant's prospects for reform and the need to promote rehabilitation. Instead, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence that included community service and probation. This decision reflected a balanced approach that recognised the seriousness of the offence while also considering the defendant's individual circumstances and potential for positive change.
The final orders of the court included a non-custodial sentence with conditions such as community service, probation, and other rehabilitative measures. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case, resulting in a sentence that aimed to achieve both deterrence and rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [20]
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.