R v Pikula-Carroll (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 347

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pikula-Carroll (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 347
Hearing Date:	11 November 2020
DecisionDate:	1 December 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [78]–[85]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – three counts assault occasioning actual bodily harm – murder – aggravated robbery – pleas of guilty – expressions of remorse approached with caution – fair prospects for rehabilitation – consideration of sentences of two co-offenders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 24 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310, 312 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33(1)w
Cases Cited:	Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 R v Sikounnabouth [2019] ACTSC 119
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jason Norman Pikula-Carroll (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Purnell SC (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 109 of 2019

BURNS J:

Jason Pikula-Carroll, you have entered pleas of guilty to four offences that occurred on 22 September 2016 and to two offences that occurred on 3 November 2016. On

22 September 2016, you committed an offence of aggravated burglary (CC 2017/6413) and three offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (SCANN 19/3732; SCANN 19/3734; SCANN 19/3736).

The offence of aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $320,000, or both. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act), carries a maximum penalty of

five years’ imprisonment.

On 3 November 2016, you committed an offence of murder (CC 2017/6415) and an offence of aggravated robbery (SCANN 33/20). The offence of murder, contrary to

s 12 of the Crimes Act, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The offence of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000, or both.

It is my responsibility to sentence you for these offences. Some factual matters were disputed between yourself and the Crown, and it is my responsibility to rule upon those matters. I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any fact that makes an offence more serious, but I need only be satisfied of the probability of any fact that may mitigate an offence.

Procedural history

On 14 May 2019, you were committed for trial to this Court on two charges of aggravated burglary and one charge of murder. On 5 July 2019 the Crown filed an indictment containing eight counts, being one count of aggravated burglary on

22 September 2016, three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the same date, one count of intentionally wounding on the same date, one count of intentionally or recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm on the same date, one count of murder on 3 November 2016 and one…

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 Pikula-Carroll (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Pikula-Carroll (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 347
Case: [2020] ACTSC 347
Decision Date: 1 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, murder, and aggravated robbery, following a series of incidents. The case reached the court, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant. The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the expressions of remorse made by the appellant, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the sentences imposed on the appellant's co-offenders. The court had to weigh these factors in light of the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court approached the expressions of remorse with caution, considering the nature of the offences and the appellant's involvement in them. It acknowledged the appellant's remorse but did not place significant weight on it due to the heinous nature of the crimes. The court also considered the fair prospects for rehabilitation of the appellant, taking into account the appellant's background, personal circumstances, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court examined the sentences imposed on the appellant's co-offenders to ensure consistency and proportionality in the sentencing process.

In the end, the court determined the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account all the relevant factors. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and retribution, while also considering the appellant's potential for rehabilitation. The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraphs [78] to [85] of the judgment, outlining the specific sentence and any other relevant orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [78]–[85]

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.