R v Ngerengere

Case [2015] ACTSC 224


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v NGERENGERE

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 224

Hearing Date(s):

30 July 2015

DecisionDate:

7 August 2015

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.    Michael Ngerengere be convicted of the offence of burglary on 18 July 2014.

2.    Michael Ngerengere be convicted of the offence of theft on 18 July 2014.

3.    Michael Ngerengere appear before this Court at 9:30 am on 9 March 2016 to be sentenced for the offences of burglary and theft.

4.    Michael Ngerengere be released on bail to appear before this Court at 9:30 am on 9 March 2016 subject to the following conditions:

a)       That he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.

b)       That he admit himself to the Karralika Therapeutic Community on 7 September 2015 and remain in the rehabilitation program there until he appears again in court.

c)       That he comply with any requirements of the Karralika Therapeutic Community for pre-admission detoxification.

d)       That he obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of the Karralika program and consent to that person providing to the person supervising him any information about his progress as may be reasonably requested.

e)       That, if he are not admitted to the program or if he leaves or is discharged from the program for any reason, he report to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within 24 hours or the next business day to have his bail reconsidered.

f)        That he not consume illicit drugs.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Bail – Aggravated burglary – Theft – Childhood disadvantage – Serious mental health issues – Significant drug use – Extensive criminal history – Offender seeking rehabilitation – Deferred sentence order

Legislation Cited:

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

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 312, 308
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 88, 90A

Cases Cited:


Douglas v The Queen
(1995) 56 FCR 465
Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Hutchinson v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 29
Monfries v The Queen (2014) 68 MVR 385
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
R v Kristianssen [2015] ACTSC 159
Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13
Tate v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 50

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Michael Ngerengere (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S McMurray  (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SCC 66 of 2015       

REFSHAUGE J:

  1. This Court sees many cases of burglary and theft where business, community or residential premises are entered by trespassers seeking to steal property from them.

  1. It is the duty of the courts to address this criminal conduct by its powers of sentencing. This requires the court to balance the purposes of sentencing set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), which the legislature has provided are to be used…

Continue reading R v Ngerengere

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ngerengere [2015] ACTSC 224
Case
[2015] ACTSC 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Ngerengere was convicted of burglary and theft on 18 July 2014. The court was tasked with determining whether he should be granted bail pending his sentencing. Ngerengere sought bail on the basis that he had a history of childhood disadvantage, serious mental health issues, significant drug use, and an extensive criminal history. He expressed a desire to seek rehabilitation and argued that a deferred sentence order would provide the opportunity for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the offences and the risk of reoffending.

The court examined the principles of bail under the Bail Act, considering the gravity of the offences, Ngerengere's criminal history, and the likelihood of him appearing in court. The court noted that while the offences were serious, Ngerengere's background and desire for rehabilitation were compelling. The court found that the risk of reoffending could be mitigated by placing him in a structured rehabilitation program. The court was satisfied that the conditions of bail, particularly his admission to the Karralika Therapeutic Community, provided a sufficient safeguard to the community while allowing Ngerengere the opportunity to address his issues.

In light of the above, the court granted bail to Michael Ngerengere, subject to stringent conditions designed to ensure his appearance in court and to facilitate his rehabilitation. These conditions included accepting supervision, complying with the Karralika Therapeutic Community's requirements, and refraining from drug use. Ngerengere was to appear before the court for sentencing on 9 March 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Michael Ngerengere be convicted of the offence of burglary on 18 July 2014.

2. Michael Ngerengere be convicted of the offence of theft on 18 July 2014.

3. Michael Ngerengere appear before this Court at 9:30 am on 9 March 2016 to be sentenced for the offences of burglary and theft.

4. Michael Ngerengere be released on bail to appear before this Court at 9:30 am on 9 March 2016 subject to the following conditions:

a) That he accept supervision by the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.

b) That he admit himself to the Karralika Therapeutic Community on 7 September 2015 and remain in the rehabilitation program there until he appears again in court.

c) That he comply with any requirements of the Karralika Therapeutic Community for pre-admission detoxification.

d) That he obey all reasonable directions of the person in charge of the Karralika program and consent to that person providing to the person supervising him any information about his progress as may be reasonably requested.

e) That, if he are not admitted to the program or if he leaves or is discharged from the program for any reason, he report to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within 24 hours or the next business day to have his bail reconsidered.

f) That he not consume illicit drugs.

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.