R v McCurley

Case [2020] ACTSC 140


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v McCurley

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 140

Hearing Date:

6 February 2020

DecisionDate:

13 March 2020

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [53]–[75]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – five counts aggravated burglary – one count burglary – two counts attempted aggravated burglary by joint commission – two counts theft – one count theft by joint commission – two counts riding in a motor vehicle without consent – one count driving a motor vehicle without consent – one count taking a motor vehicle without consent – two counts causing damage to property by fire by joint commission – one count damaging property by joint commission – one count damaging property – pleas of guilty – general and personal deterrence – guarded prospects for rehabilitation

Cases Cited:

R v Inder [2019] ACTSC 208

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Patrick McCurley (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

E Wren (Crown)

S McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 164 of 2019; SCC 307 of 2019

BURNS J:

  1. Patrick McCurley, you have pleaded guilty to 19 offences committed between


    14 and 28 March 2019. These offences are:

·        five counts of aggravated burglary;

·        one count of burglary;

·        two counts of attempted aggravated burglary by joint commission;

·        three counts of theft including one by joint commission;

·        two counts of riding in a motor vehicle without consent;

·        one count of driving a motor vehicle without consent;

·        one count of taking a motor vehicle without consent;

·        two counts of causing damage to property by fire by joint commission;

·        one count of damaging property by joint commission; and

·        one count of damaging property.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated burglary is 20 years' imprisonment, a fine of 2000 penalty units, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of burglary is 14 years' imprisonment, a fine of 1400 penalty units, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of theft is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of 1000 penalty units, or both. The maximum penalty for taking, riding in or driving a motor vehicle without consent is five years' imprisonment, a fine of 500 penalty units, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of causing damage to property by fire is 15 years' imprisonment,


    a fine of 1500 penalty units, or both. Finally, the maximum penalty for the offence of damaging property is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of 1000 penalty units, or both.

  1. You entered pleas of guilty to these charges on different dates and at different stages of the proceedings. You were charged with a number of offences on 4 April 2019, when you first appeared before the ACT Magistrates Court, and the remainder on 9 May 2019. You entered pleas of not guilty to all charges on 9 May 2019 in the


    ACT Magistrates Court.

  1. Of the offences, 13…

Continue reading R v McCurley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140
Case
[2020] ACTSC 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus McCurley, the respondent was convicted of multiple offences including aggravated burglary, theft, and property damage. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent entered pleas of guilty to all charges, which included five counts of aggravated burglary, one count of burglary, two counts of attempted aggravated burglary by joint commission, two counts of theft, one count of theft by joint commission, two counts of riding in a motor vehicle without consent, one count of driving a motor vehicle without consent, one count of taking a motor vehicle without consent, two counts of causing damage to property by fire by joint commission, one count of damaging property by joint commission, and one count of damaging property.

The court had to consider the appropriate sentencing principles in light of the respondent's guilty pleas and his criminal history. Key issues included the need for both general and personal deterrence, as well as the guarded prospects for the respondent’s rehabilitation. The court needed to balance these factors against the respondent’s age and the potential for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the respondent’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the crimes warranted a sentence that served both deterrent purposes and aimed at the respondent's rehabilitation, albeit with guarded prospects. The court meticulously assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors before determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the need for general deterrence while also considering the personal circumstances of the respondent.

The final orders of the court, detailed from paragraph [53] to [75], outlined the specific sentences for each count, ensuring that the cumulative punishment appropriately addressed the gravity of the offences committed by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [53]–[75]

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.