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
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
The facts were agreed and are summarised as follows.
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- R v Oeti [2018] ACTSC 229
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 229
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.