R v NQ - [2019] ACTSC 51

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v NQ
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 51
Hearing Date:	6 February 2019
DecisionDate:	8 February 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [52]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated burglary – aggravated robbery – dishonestly take or ride motor vehicle – damaging property – offender a child at the time of offending – uncertain prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), ss 7(1), 64(2), 133C(1), 133C(2), 133D, 133G, 133G(3), Pt 4.4 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 312(a), 318(1), 403(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) NQ (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 239 of 2018 SCC 240 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, who I will refer to as NQ, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) aggravated burglary (CH2018/4355) contrary to s 312(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) on 28 February 2018, the maximum penalty being 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both (count 11);

(b) two counts of aggravated robbery (CH2018/319 and CH2018/258) contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code, one offence occurring on 27 February 2018 (count 8) and the other occurring on 28 February 2018 (count 14), the maximum penalty being 2500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both;

(c) two counts of dishonestly taking or riding in a motor vehicle without consent (CH2018/321 and CH2018/259) contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code, one offence occurring on 27 February 2018 (count 10, taking) and the other occurring on 28 February 2018 (count 15, riding), the maximum penalty being 500 penalty units, imprisonment for five years or both; and

(d) damaging property (XO2018/31438) contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code on 28 February 2018 (count 12), the maximum penalty being 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

The offender has asked the court to take into account an additional offence in sentencing her for the second aggravated robbery, namely common assault (CH2018/261) contrary to s 26 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) on 28 February 2018, the maximum penalty being imprisonment for two years.

Facts

On 1 February 2018, a co-offender, EG, and his wife travelled to Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). EG is the offender’s brother-in-law. SC, the offender’s uncle who is another co-offender, arranged accommodation for them. He did this by getting his son’s friend, EE, to rent hotel rooms. EG then told EE to drive to Sydney and pick up the offender and bring her back to Canberra. He did so and she subsequently met up with her co-offenders. At the time the offender was just short of her 18^th birthday. EG was in his 30s. SC was in his 40s or 50s. Between 24 February and 27 February 2018, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v NQ

Details

AGLC: R v NQ [2019] ACTSC 51
Case: [2019] ACTSC 51
Decision Date: 8 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v NQ was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendant, NQ, faced a series of serious charges. These included aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, dishonestly taking or riding a motor vehicle, and damaging property. The defendant was a child at the time of the offences, and the court was required to consider the uncertain prospects of rehabilitation in sentencing. The primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the seriousness of the crimes with the offender's age and potential for rehabilitation.

The court identified several key legal issues to resolve in this case. Firstly, it needed to assess the severity of the offences committed by NQ, taking into account the nature of the crimes and their impact on the victims. Secondly, the court had to consider the principles of juvenile justice and the importance of rehabilitation, given that NQ was a child at the time of the offences. Additionally, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence that would serve both as a punishment and as a means to rehabilitate the offender.

In its reasoning, the court recognised the gravity of the crimes committed by NQ but also acknowledged the need to address the offender's uncertain prospects of rehabilitation. The court highlighted that while the offences were serious, the age of the offender and the potential for rehabilitation needed to be weighed in the sentencing process. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering both punitive and rehabilitative aspects in crafting a sentence that would be effective in addressing the offender's behaviour and reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

The court ordered that NQ be detained in a juvenile detention facility for a period determined by the sentencing process, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need for a balanced approach that considered both the punishment and the rehabilitation of the offender, given their age and the uncertain prospects of rehabilitation. The specific duration of the detention was to be determined in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and the court's assessment of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [52]

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.