R v Peadon (No 1) - [2020] ACTSC 343

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Peadon (No 1)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 343
Hearing Date:	4 September 2020
Decision Date:	7 September 2020
Before:	Refshauge AJ

1. Mr Peadon be convicted of damaging a chain link fence

Decision:

in Fyshwick.
2.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to six months’
imprisonment, to commence on 7 March 2020.
3.    Mr Peadon be convicted of trespassing on the property of Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.
4.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be fined $500, with 18 months to pay.
5.    Mr Peadon be convicted of the theft of nine motor vehicles from Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick.
6.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to three years’
imprisonment to commence on 7 June 2020.
7.    Mr Peadon be convicted of the theft of a motorcycle, helmet and bag from Fyshwick.
8.    For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to 15 months’
imprisonment to commence on 6 September 2022.
9.    Mr Peadon be convicted of dishonestly riding in a motor
vehicle without the owner’s consent.
10. For that offence, Mr Peadon be sentenced to six months’
imprisonment to commence on 7 September 2023.
11. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made in respect of Mr Peadon for a period of 12 months.
12. For the custodial part of that Order, Mr Peadon’s

sentence of four years for the theft offence, the primary
offence, and the associated offences be suspended for a
period of three years under s 80W of the Crimes
(Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
13. For the treatment and supervision part of that Order, Mr Peadon be ordered to comply with the core conditions set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
14. On the completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, Mr Peadon be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations for a period of three years from 6 September 2021.
15. Mr Peadon be directed to, upon his release, travel directly to Canberra Recovery Services, to arrive there before 3 pm today and admit himself to their treatment program.
16. Mr Peadon be directed to reside at that facility for the length of the program and not to leave without the leave of the Court and to comply with the rules of the program and the facility.
17. If he is discharged from or leaves the program, Mr Peadon be directed to present himself to ACT Corrective Services by 4 pm on the next business day after his departure.
18. Mr Peadon be directed to comply with any directions or orders of the Court about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means, and any other treatment or
supervision matters from time to time.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft of motor vehicles – recklessly causing damage – dishonestly riding in a…

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 Peadon (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Peadon (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 343
Case: [2020] ACTSC 343
Decision Date: 4 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peadon involved the defendant who was charged with multiple offences, including theft of motor vehicles, recklessly causing damage, dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent, and trespassing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant's legal team argued that the severity of the sentence was disproportionate to the degree of pre-planning involved in the offences and highlighted the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, particularly in relation to drug and alcohol dependency issues.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in the circumstances and the extent to which the mitigating factors could be considered in determining the sentence. The court had to balance the need to deter the defendant and others from committing similar offences against the potential for rehabilitation and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the degree of pre-planning involved, and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court noted that while the offences were serious, there was no significant pre-planning, and the defendant had shown some potential for rehabilitation, particularly in relation to addressing drug and alcohol issues. The court ultimately determined that an appropriate sentence would be a combination of imprisonment and community-based orders, aimed at both punishment and rehabilitation. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, followed by a period of supervision and rehabilitation programs addressing drug and alcohol issues.

The final orders included the defendant being sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months, and a subsequent period of supervision and participation in rehabilitation programs.

Orders