R v Reid - [2021] ACTSC 72

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Reid
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 72
Hearing Date:	1 February 2021, 27 April 2021
DecisionDate:	28 April 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [37]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – receiving stolen property – theft – burglary – trespass – Intensive Corrections Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 36 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 308, 311, 313 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), s 11
Cases Cited:	The Queen v Ngata [2015] ACTSC 356
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jason Adam Reid (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) T Taylor (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 196 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

On 28 August 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to the following eight charges in the Magistrates Court:

(a)Receiving stolen property (CC5933/2020), contrary to section 313 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
(b)Attempt minor theft (CC8609/2020), contrary to section 44 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $8000 or both.
(c)Three counts of trespass (CC8610/2020, CC 6154/2020 and CC6206/2020), contrary to section 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth). The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,100.
(d)Two counts of theft (CC6153/2020 and CC6205/2020) contrary to section 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
(e)Burglary (CC8613/2020), contrary to section 311 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000 or both.

The above charges were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

The offender is entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty. Consistent with the submissions of the parties, this discount should be 25%.

The matter initially came before me on 1 February 2021. The sentence hearing was adjourned so that an Intensive Corrections Order Assessment (ICO) could be obtained.

Consequently a report was produced and is dated 22 April 2021. The report says that the offender is suitable for an ICO. It suggests that supervision would be targeted to deal with drug and alcohol problems and mental health issues.

The offences are described in detail in the Statement of Facts. The following is a summary.

Count 1: In the early hours of 7 April 2020 there was a break-in at a construction site in Whitlam in the ACT. A trailer was amongst the material stolen. On 14 May 2020 the police stopped the offender while driving a utility which was pulling the stolen trailer. This is the receiving charge.

Counts 2 and 3: On 4 May 2020 the offender and another man tried to enter premises, again at a construction site. They failed and left.

Counts 4 and 5: On 8 May 2020 the…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2021] ACTSC 72
Case: [2021] ACTSC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid was heard by Justice Elkaim in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The offender, Jason Adam Reid, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including receiving stolen property, attempted minor theft, multiple counts of trespass, theft, and burglary. The Crown was represented by Counsel T Hickey and the offender by T Taylor. The case was heard on 1 February 2021 and the decision was delivered on 28 April 2021. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and the circumstances of the case.

The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the suitability of the offender for an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). The offender argued that his willingness to assist law enforcement authorities should result in a greater discount for his guilty plea. However, the court found that the offer was not an undertaking within the meaning of section 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and therefore did not warrant a greater discount. The court also considered the nature and extent of the offender's criminal history, his background, and the circumstances leading to the commission of the offences.

Justice Elkaim determined that an ICO was the most appropriate sentence for the offender, with conditions that he submit to psychiatric assessment and engage in substance use and mental health treatment. The court imposed a total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months, to be served by way of an ICO. The court also imposed fines for the three counts of trespass. The court considered the principles of parity and general deterrence in determining the sentence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory sentenced Jason Adam Reid to an Intensive Corrections Order with conditions, a total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months, and fines for three counts of trespass. The court took into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the suitability of the offender for an ICO. The offender was also required to submit to psychiatric assessment and engage in substance use and mental health treatment as part of the conditions of the ICO.

Orders