R v Pattman

Case [2017] ACTSC 331

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Christopher Pattman; R v Stephen Pattman

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 331

Hearing Dates:

30 August; 27 October; 3 November 2017

DecisionDate:

3 November 2017

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [3], [88]-[90], [94], [98]-[101] and [104] below.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act endangering life – discharging a loaded arm – shooting in residential area – scheduled offences – unauthorised possession of prohibited firearm – unauthorised possession of ammunition –late pleas of guilty – use of term “outlaw motorcycle gang” – ACT Rebels – offenders’ attempts to leave motorcycle gang – entry into gang to protect daughter in relationship with senior gang member – son involved in offences to support father – possession of firearms for defensive purposes not a mitigating factor – consideration of “comparable cases”.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 27(3)(d)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), ss 42(a)(iii), 249
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68D, 68D(2)

Cases Cited:

Cramp v R [2008] NSWCCA 40

Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
R v Bryant [2014] ACTSC 128
R v Hill (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 4 September 2012)
R v Hughes (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 8 August 2013)
R v JF (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 23 December 2013)
R v Micallef (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Hunt CJ, Allen J and Mahoney JA, 14 September 1993)
R v Okwechime [2015] ACTSC 129
R v Parkinson (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 6 March 2013)
R v Stott [2017] ACTSC 248
R v Thompson [2017] ACTSC 141
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
R v Watson [2014] ACTSC 395

Yammine v R [2010] NSWCCA 123

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Christopher John Pattman (First Offender)

Stephen John Pattman (Second Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Fernandez (Crown)

Ms L Taylor (First and Second Offenders)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (First and Second Offenders)

File Numbers:

SCC 188 of 2016; SCC 189 of 2016; SCC 190 of 2016

Introduction

  1. Stephen Pattman has pleaded guilty to one offence of act endangering life by intentionally and unlawfully discharging a loaded arm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for his safety, arising under s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 10 years.

  1. In sentencing Mr Pattman, I am also asked to take into account the following offences: 

(a)unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 42(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (being a modified double-barrelled 12-gauge shotgun) and carrying a maximum penalty including 10 years imprisonment;

(b)unauthorised possession of ammunition, contrary to s 249 of the Firearms Act and carrying…

Continue reading R v Pattman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331
Case
[2017] ACTSC 331
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants in this case, Pattman and others, were charged with various criminal offences including discharging a firearm in a residential area, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of ammunition. The case came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the defendants pleaded guilty to multiple charges at various stages of the proceedings. The primary legal issues for the court to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendants given the severity of the offences and the circumstances surrounding them, as well as the impact of the defendants' membership in an outlaw motorcycle gang on their culpability.

The court considered the nature of the offences, which involved significant risks to public safety, particularly given the discharging of a firearm in a populated area. The court also examined the defendants' backgrounds, their involvement in the motorcycle gang, and the reasons behind their criminal activities. The use of firearms by the defendants was noted to be for defensive purposes, though the court determined this was not a mitigating factor. The court scrutinised the timing of the defendants' pleas of guilty and the use of the term "outlaw motorcycle gang" in relation to the ACT Rebels. The defendants' attempts to leave the motorcycle gang and the entry into the gang by one defendant to protect his daughter in a relationship with a senior gang member were also taken into account.

The court concluded that the offences were serious and warranted significant penalties. The court found that the defendants' membership in the motorcycle gang, while not directly increasing their culpability, did contribute to the context of the offences. The court imposed sentences that reflected the severity and public danger posed by the defendants' actions. The court also considered comparable cases to ensure the sentences were proportionate and appropriate. The final orders of the court included specific sentences for each defendant, taking into account the various charges and the mitigating and aggravating factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [3], [88]-[90], [94], [98]-[101] and [104] below.

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.