R v Percival - [2018] ACTSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Percival
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 230
Hearing Date:	2 August 2018
DecisionDate:	2 August 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Total sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment with a 19 month non-parole period. See [62]–[63].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – attempted aggravated robbery – sentencing purposes – general deterrence – adequate punishment – good prospect of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35(4)
Cases Cited:	Hall v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107; 346 NSWLR 367
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Adam Percival (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Mr D Hoitink (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 89 of 2018

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

The offender was committed for sentence on the following offences:

(a)17 March 2018, aggravated robbery, being an armed robbery at the North Lyneham Mini Mart.
(b)2 April 2018, aggravated robbery, being an armed robbery at the Braddon Supermarket.
(c)4 April 2018, attempted aggravated robbery, being an armed robbery at the Lyneham Newsagency.
(d)4 April 2018, aggravated robbery, being an armed robbery at the O’Connor IGA Supermarket.

The maximum penalty for each offence is 25 years' imprisonment, and/or a fine.

The offender entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court on 20 April 2018 (the second mention), a little over two weeks after he was arrested. He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The prosecution case on all counts was reasonably strong, particularly in relation to the second offence, where it was very strong.

Nevertheless, the very early pleas have a high utilitarian value. In addition, at an early stage the offender co-operated with the police when he was interviewed on 5 April 2018, (albeit after he had been identified as the perpetrator).

I acknowledge the provisions in s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). However, given the circumstances to which I have referred, I will allow a 25 per cent discount on the sentences that would otherwise have been imposed.

The offender has been in custody since his arrest on 4 April 2018, and the sentences will date from then.

Facts

First offence—17 March 2018 at North Lyneham

At about 12:45 PM on Sunday, 17 March 2018, the offender walked into the North Lyneham Mini Mart. He walked around the shop before approaching the counter and informing the female sales assistant that he wished to purchase credit for his mobile telephone. No one else was present in the store.

The offender produced a knife like a “chef's knife”. It was 18 to 20 centimetres in length. He demanded that the sales assistant give him money, then walked behind the counter and held the knife towards the sales assistant, about 10 centimetres from her body. He repeated his demand for money. The sales assistant pointed out that the store had security cameras, but…

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 Percival

Details

AGLC: R v Percival [2018] ACTSC 230
Case: [2018] ACTSC 230
Decision Date: 2 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Percival, the appellant faced charges related to both aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, taking into account the nature of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the prospects for rehabilitation.

The court was required to consider several legal issues. Chief among these was the determination of an adequate punishment for the offences committed, which involved a high degree of violence and threatened the safety of the victims. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the principle of general deterrence against the appellant's potential for rehabilitation. This balancing act was crucial in crafting a sentence that not only punished the appellant but also contributed to the broader aims of the criminal justice system.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the severity of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The Supreme Court of Queensland found that a total sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 19 months, was appropriate. The court emphasised the need to deter not only the appellant but also others from engaging in similar conduct. It also acknowledged the appellant's potential for rehabilitation, which influenced the overall sentencing. The detailed reasoning is laid out in the judgment from paragraphs [62] to [63].

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment with a 19 month non-parole period.

See [62]–[63].

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.