R v Muell

Case [2019] ACTSC 77


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Muell

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 77

Hearing Date:

7 February 2019

DecisionDate:

7 February 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [36]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – joint indictment – co-offenders sentenced at the same time – aggravated burglary of underground carpark of apartment complex where vehicle taken and motorbike stolen – aggravated burglary of Subway store – attempted aggravated robbery of taxi driver at night while carrying a handgun and knife – young offender with more significant role than co-offender in offending conduct – guilty pleas – poor criminal history – abuse of illicit drugs – parity considered – prospects of rehabilitation considered – general deterrence, punishment, denunciation and protection to the community – custodial sentences 

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 310(b), 312, 318

Cases Cited:

Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16

R v Beattie [2019] ACTSC 12
R v Billington [2014] ACTSC 350
R v Lock [2016] ACTSC 31

R v Lowe [2015] ACTSC 116

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Paul Muell (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

K McCann (Crown)

S McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 92 of 2018

SCC 238 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. Paul Muell has pleaded guilty to five charges for offences committed on 7 and 8 January 2018.

  1. The charges are:

(a)aggravated burglary (being a contravention of s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty for which is 20 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both);

(b)theft (a contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both);

(c)dishonestly taking a motor vehicle without consent (a contravention of s 318 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty being five years imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both);

(d)a further charge of aggravated burglary; and

(e)a charge of attempted aggravated robbery (a contravention of s 310(b) of the Criminal Code,  the maximum penalty for which is 25 years imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both).

  1. The first three offences were committed on 7 January 2018, the last two were committed on 8 January 2018.  All of the offending occurred within a seven and a half hour period.

Facts

  1. The facts relating to the first three offences listed above are as follows.

  1. About 10:26pm on 7 January 2018, the offender and an unknown male entered the underground carpark of the Axis Apartments located in Miller Street in Lyneham.  The underground carpark was secured by a swipe card.  The offender and the unknown male entered the carpark on foot by following behind a car as it drove through the sliding access gate.  The offender attempted to partially cover his face with a black face covering with a white graphic design around the mouth and nose area.  The unknown male also had his face…

Continue reading R v Muell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77
Case
[2019] ACTSC 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Muell, the defendant was charged with multiple serious offences including aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, and theft. The offences occurred at various locations, including an underground carpark of an apartment complex, a Subway store, and involved the attempted robbery of a taxi driver. The matter was heard in the relevant court where Muell entered guilty pleas for all charges. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for Muell, considering his role in the offences, his criminal history, his substance abuse issues, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentences for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, his role compared to his co-offenders, his prior criminal record, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to balance the objectives of general deterrence, punishment, denunciation, and protection of the community in arriving at its decision.

The court found that Muell had played a more significant role than his co-offenders in the commission of the offences, and that while he had a poor criminal history, he had shown potential for rehabilitation through his guilty pleas and his engagement in rehabilitation programs. The court considered parity with co-offenders who were also sentenced, as well as the broader objectives of sentencing. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to serve the purposes of deterrence and protection of the community.

In conclusion, the court imposed a custodial sentence on Muell. The exact duration of the sentence and any additional orders were detailed in the court's judgment, reflecting the comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [36]

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.