R v Minnis

[2014] ACTSC 268

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Minnis

Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 268

Hearing Date(s):

22 & 23 September 2014

DecisionDate:

23 September 2014

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

See [25]–[26]

Category:

Sentence

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – found guilty following jury trial – aggravated burglary – in company and armed with an offensive weapon – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – “violent home invasion” – on conditional liberty – rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 33

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Rian Christopher Minnis (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Fernandez (Crown)

Mr J Lawton (Offender)

Solicitors

Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Crown)

John O’Keefe (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 39 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

1. Following a trial, a jury found the offender guilty of three counts: 

(a)One count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (maximum available penalty 20 years’ imprisonment); and

(b)Two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (maximum available penalty five years’ imprisonment).

1. The offences occurred in the early hours of 12 December 2013.  The offender has been in custody since that date.  Subsequently, he was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for an offence that occurred prior to the present offences.  He received a sentence of six months, suspended after serving three months.  Consequently, of the period that he has spent in custody since 12 December 2013, three months should be attributed to the Magistrates Court sentence.  I will commence the subject sentences on 12 March 2014 to recognise the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court.

The facts

1. The offender was well known to both victims.  He was a neighbour and frequent visitor to the premises at which the offences were committed.  The premises were occupied by Ms Fort.  At one stage, the offender had stayed at Ms Fort’s home.  At the time of the offences, Ms Fort was living at her home with her partner, Mr Hancock, and with her 17-year-old son.  On the day prior to the offences, there was a falling out between the offender and Mr Hancock concerning a pair of shoes. 

1. On the evening of 11 December 2013, Ms Fort, Mr Hancock and Ms Fort’s 17-year-old son watched television.  They fell asleep in front of the television.  The front door was closed but unlocked. 

1. At about 4 am, the offender and an unknown male entered the premises.  Ms Fort awoke to chaos.  There was screaming.  Ms Fort observed the offender in possession of what appeared to be a baseball bat or something similar.  Either the offender or the co-offender must have struck Ms Fort before she realised it, because she later found that pain in her leg was due to a huge area of bruising occasioned by a striking.  Ms Fort also suffered a very large dark bruise on the inner thigh of her right…