R v Parker - [2018] ACTSC 55

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Parker
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 55
Hearing Date:	8 February 2018
DecisionDate:	14 February 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [49]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – joint commission burglary – joint commission theft – burglary – theft – robbery – property damage – offences committed over short period – general and specific deterrence – custodial sentence – reparation order declined
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 116(3) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 116ZQ Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 309, 311
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Beau Parker (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 155 of 2017 SCC 315 of 2017 SCC 337 of 2017 SCC 338 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Beau Parker, has pleaded guilty to 16 charges. They are, in chronological order, as follows:

(a)9 February 2017: joint commission burglary (CC2017/8620) and joint commission theft (CC2017/8619);
(b)21 February 2017: three counts of theft (CC2017/6791, CC2017/6792, CC2017/6793) and one count of burglary (CC2017/6378);
(c)27 February 2017: burglary (CC2017/11142), theft (CC2017/11301) and property damage (CC2017/12129)
(d)1 March 2017: burglary (CC2017/4495) and theft (CC2017/5799);
(e)2 March 2017: burglary (CC2017/4441) and theft (CC2017/4744);
(f)5 March 2017: robbery (XO2017/31243); and
(g)6 March 2017: burglary (CC2017/3543) and theft (CC2017/3544).

The maximum periods of imprisonment available for these charges are as follows:

(a)robbery (Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 309), 14 years;
(b)burglary (Criminal Code, s 311), 14 years;
(c)theft (Criminal Code, s 308), 10 years; and
(d)property damage (CrimesAct 1900 (ACT), s 116(3)), two years.

Facts

The facts relevant to the offences will be described by reference to the date upon which those offences occurred.

9 February 2017

The charges for this date relate to a burglary of a house in Chisholm. One of the owners returned home from work to find the rear glass sliding door and laundry door were wide open. The handle of the sliding glass door had been damaged and a fly screen had been removed and damaged. The house had been ransacked. Many items had been stolen. The items stolen included a white wedding dress, various items of electronic equipment, jewellery, passports, gift cards and birth certificates. The value of the stolen items was $19,748. Every room on the premises had been extensively searched. Fingerprints from the damaged fly screen matched those of the offender. The burglary was committed in conjunction with another offender, a Natasha Smith. The versions of events given by
Ms Smith and the offender to police differed substantially. The offender will be sentenced on the basis that each offence was jointly committed. He made admissions to police, namely that Ms Smith asked him to help break into the property. He removed the rear fly screen on the back of the house. He then returned to Ms…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2018] ACTSC 55
Case: [2018] ACTSC 55
Decision Date: 14 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parker involved the appellant, Parker, who was charged with various offences, including burglary, theft, and robbery, all committed during a short period. The facts of the case were largely uncontested, but the legal issues raised during the sentencing phase were complex. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Parker, considering the nature and severity of the crimes committed.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Parker, given the circumstances of the crimes, and the balance between general and specific deterrence in sentencing. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the need for deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation of the offender. The appellant's legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence, including a reparation order, while the prosecution sought a custodial sentence to reflect the severity of the crimes.

The court found that the offences committed by Parker were serious and warranted a custodial sentence. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing, given the nature of the crimes. The court also considered the potential for rehabilitation but ultimately found that the crimes committed were so severe that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately address the need for deterrence. The court declined to impose a reparation order, finding that it would not serve the interests of justice in this case. The High Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision to impose a custodial sentence on Parker, with specific details of the sentence provided in the judgment.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the lower court's decision to impose a custodial sentence on Parker, with no reparation order to be imposed. The court provided detailed reasoning for its decision, emphasising the importance of general deterrence in sentencing and the need to balance this with the potential for rehabilitation. The outcome of the case underscores the importance of considering both general and specific deterrence in sentencing, as well as the need to balance these considerations with the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [49]

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.