R v Monaghan

Case [2015] ACTSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Monaghan

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 153

Hearing Date(s):

4 June 2015

DecisionDate:

12 June 2015

Before:

Refshauge ACJ

Decision:

1.    Jonathon Monaghan be convicted of aggravated robbery on 17 January 2014.

2.    Jonathon Monaghan be sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment to commence on 2 June 2016 that is to be cumulative as to 9 months on the sentences he is already serving. 

3.    A non parole period be set to commence on 2 March 2013 and to end on 1 September 2016.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL – Practice and procedure – Sentencing – Aggravated Robbery – Extensive criminal record – Offender seeking rehabilitation – Totality – Importance of parole

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 334(2)(a)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33(1), 66
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310

Cases Cited:

Allred v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 21

Ashdown v The Queen [2011] VSCA 408
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Jajou (2009) 196 A Crim R 370
R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380
R v Monaghan (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, SCC No 183 of 2012, 11 December 2012)
R v Monaghan (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, SCC No 183 of 2012, 13 December 2012).
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Jonathon Monaghan (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms J Campbell (Crown)

Ms T Warwick (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

JCKB Legal Service (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SCC 168 of 2014

REFSHAUGE J:

  1. A person may be charged with a series of offences to some of which he or she pleads guilty but for others of which he or she wishes to challenge the case brought by the prosecution.

  1. This can have unintended consequences because the desirability of sentencing offenders as soon as reasonably possible can mean that the hearing of the other offences, for which the offender would normally be sentenced at the same time, can be delayed until the offender is either convicted some time later or changes the entered plea to a plea of guilty because of further evidence showing the likelihood of conviction or otherwise.

  1. This can cause difficulties with what is known as the principle of totality, namely, as McHugh J described it in Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 307-8, that is the requirement of “a judge who is sentencing an offender for a number of offences to ensure that the aggregation of the sentences appropriate for each offence is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved”.

  1. On 30 October 2014, I sentenced Mr Monaghan on his plea of guilty to an offence of aggravated robbery.  That conviction breached a Good Behaviour Order made when he was convicted for two offences of aggravated robbery, three offences of theft and one offence of dishonestly taking and using a…

Continue reading R v Monaghan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Monaghan [2015] ACTSC 153
Case
[2015] ACTSC 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jonathon Monaghan, appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Monaghan was convicted of aggravated robbery on 17 January 2014, following an incident in which he, along with two accomplices, robbed a man at knifepoint. Monaghan was sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. The appeal focused on the sentence, with Monaghan arguing that the non-parole period was too long and did not adequately take into account his extensive criminal history and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court had to consider the principles of totality and the importance of parole in sentencing. Monaghan argued that the sentence was excessive and did not reflect his efforts to turn his life around and seek rehabilitation. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and Monaghan's criminal history. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to provide an offender with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

In determining the appeal, the court considered the totality principle, which requires that the sentence be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's criminal history. The court also considered the importance of parole, which provides an offender with an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation and be released on parole. The court found that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the totality principle and the importance of parole. The court also found that the non-parole period was reasonable, given Monaghan's extensive criminal history and the need for punishment and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. Monaghan was to be sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. The sentence was to be cumulative as to 9 months on the sentences he was already serving.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Jonathon Monaghan be convicted of aggravated robbery on 17 January 2014.

2. Jonathon Monaghan be sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment to commence on 2 June 2016 that is to be cumulative as to 9 months on the sentences he is already serving.

3. A non parole period be set to commence on 2 March 2013 and to end on 1 September 2016.

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.