R v McInnes

Case [2017] ACTSC 207


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v McInnes

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 207

Hearing Date:

4 August 2017

DecisionDate:

4 August 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [25]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – obtain property by deception – minor theft.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310(b), 321, 326

Cases Cited:

R v Bresnan [2017] ACTSC 138

R v Campbell (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 368

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Joseph Paul McInnes (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Saikal-Skea (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

ACT Legal Aid (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 101 of 2017 and SCC 102 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

  1. On 24 April 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 (b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for each offence is 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $375,000.

  1. The offender also pleaded guilty to a summary offence of minor theft, contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is six months imprisonment and/or a fine of $7,500.

  1. The offender has also pleaded guilty to an offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is ten years imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000.

  1. The first robbery occurred on 31 December 2016. The offender entered a discount store in the Westfield complex at Belconnen. He threatened a cashier with a knife and took $380 in cash.

  1. The second robbery occurred on 1 January 2017, in the same complex. The offender entered an alcohol outlet. Once again, a cashier was threatened with a knife. On this occasion, $323.80 was taken.

  1. The third robbery occurred on 9 January 2017 at a supermarket in Casey. The offender repeated the same pattern, threatening a cashier with a knife and then removing money from a till. On this occasion, the offender took $740.

  1. The minor theft occurred on 6 January 2017. The offender stole $820 from the same discount store involved in the first robbery.

  1. The offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception occurred on 9 December 2016 at Ngunnawal. The offender used a stolen credit card to obtain goods to the value of $120.48.

  1. CCTV footage showed that the offender had loitered in the relevant area before the robberies. There was clearly a degree of premeditation.

  1. The offender has been in custody since 9 January 2017. He does not have a criminal record.

  1. The offender was born in 1992. He was raised in Canberra by his father, with whom he has a strong relationship.

  1. The offender has a child from a relationship that occurred when he was in Year 12. He sees his son every second weekend. His second significant relationship lasted for about two years.

  1. The offender took a year off school when his…

Continue reading R v McInnes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McInnes [2017] ACTSC 207
Case
[2017] ACTSC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the case of R v McInnes, in which the defendant was accused of aggravated robbery and obtaining property by deception. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia. The defendant was found guilty of these charges and was subsequently sentenced. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court considered whether the sentence met the requirements of justice in the circumstances, taking into account the principles of sentencing for aggravated robbery and deception. The court weighed the gravity of the offences, the defendant’s criminal history, and the impact of the crimes on the victims. The court also examined whether the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed, and if it served the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

Upon review, the court determined that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the severity of the crimes and the principles of justice. The court found that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences and provided appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and therefore did not interfere with the trial judge's discretion. The final orders of the court were to confirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [25]

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.