R v Oeti

Case [2018] ACTSC 229


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Oeti

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 229

Hearing Date:

6 August 2018

DecisionDate:

9 August 2018

Reasons Date:

6, 9 August 2018

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [54]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – multiple counts of aggravated robbery with various offensive weapons, namely, a replica firearm, a baseball bat, a machete and a knife – limited criminal history when offences committed – guilty pleas – totality of sentences – concurrency – Queensland sentence treated as if it were a head sentence with a non-parole period rather than a head sentence with a suspended sentence – punishment – general deterrence – specific deterrence – denunciation – custodial sentence

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310(b)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Sonny Riener Oeti (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

J De Bruin (Crown)

J Robertson (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 104 of 2014

SCC 24 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. Mr Sonny Riener Oeti has pleaded guilty to six charges of aggravated robbery.  Aggravated robbery carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $375,000 or both: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), 310(b). The offences are as follows:

(a)CC2013/11769, an offence committed on 26 December 2013 at the Foodworks Supermarket in Pearce;

(b)CC2017/9640, an offence committed on 13 April 2014 at the Swinger Hill IGA Supermarket;

(c)CC2017/9641, an offence committed on 18 June 2014 at the Chapman IGA Supermarket;

(d)CC2017/9642, an offence committed on 7 July 2014 at the Hello Sexy shop in Fyshwick;

(e)CC2014/10212, an offence committed on 10 July 2014 at the Waramanga General Store; and

(f)CC2014/10213, an offence committed on 13 July 2014 at Macka’s Griffith Newsagency.

Facts

  1. The facts were agreed and are summarised as follows.

  1. On 26 December 2013, at about 1:40pm, the offender entered the Foodworks Supermarket at the Pearce Shopping Centre and held up the cash register operator by showing him what appeared to be a firearm tucked into his pants.  He stole $429 and three packets of Marlboro Red cigarettes.  Later that day, the offender admitted to committing the offence when interviewed by police.  He spent until 17 January 2014 in custody and was then released on bail.

  1. While on bail, on 13 April 2014, the offender held up the Swinger Hill IGA Supermarket.  He was wearing a hooded jumper, black gloves and a dark coloured “skull” mask.  He carried an aluminium baseball bat.  He threatened the employee behind the counter and stole $350.

  1. On 18 June 2014, he entered the Chapman IGA Supermarket wearing a hooded ski‑style jacket and his face covered by a scarf.  He was armed with a machete.  He demanded money and threatened staff with the machete.  He stole $391.45.

  1. On 7 July 2014, he entered the Hello Sexy shop in Fyshwick, his face was covered with a black balaclava.  He was armed with a machete.  He demanded money and stole…

Continue reading R v Oeti

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Oeti [2018] ACTSC 229
Case
[2018] ACTSC 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Oeti and others, were charged with multiple counts of aggravated robbery, involving various offensive weapons including a replica firearm, a baseball bat, a machete, and a knife. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland where the respondents pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondents, taking into consideration their limited criminal history at the time of the offences, the nature and circumstances of the crimes, and the totality of the sentences. The legal issues involved the appropriate weight to be given to the various sentencing principles, including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and the need to balance the punishment with the crime.

The court considered the totality of the sentences, focusing on the concurrency of the sentences, and determined that the Queensland sentence should be treated as if it were a head sentence with a non-parole period rather than a head sentence with a suspended sentence. In determining the appropriate custodial sentence, the court balanced the need for general and specific deterrence, the denunciation of the crimes, and the need to balance the punishment with the crime. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for the respondents was a custodial sentence, taking into consideration the totality of the sentences, the nature and circumstances of the crimes, and the need to balance the punishment with the crime.

The court ordered that the respondents be sentenced to a custodial term, with specific details of the sentence provided in the judgment. The court also ordered that the Queensland sentence be treated as if it were a head sentence with a non-parole period, and that the sentences be served concurrently. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the various sentencing principles, including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and the need to balance the punishment with the crime, in determining an appropriate sentence for serious crimes.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [54]

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.