R v Reid - [2018] ACTSC 368

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Reid
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 368
Hearing Date:	13 November 2018
DecisionDate:	14 November 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – two counts of aggravated burglary with a crow bar in company – resisting a territory public official – possess crow bar offence taken into account – poor criminal history – guilty pleas – significant history of alcohol and polysubstance abuse – hopeful factors for rehabilitation – significant support programs available in the community – custodial sentence with shorter than usual non-parole period
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 380(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Pt 4.4 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 312, 361(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Nathan Reid (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Perks (Crown) G Mansfield (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 178 of 2018 SCC 179 of 2018 SCC 259 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Mr Nathan Reid, has pleaded guilty to two counts (CC2018/3543, CC2018/3544) of aggravated burglary in company contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Aggravated burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment or 2000 penalty units or both.

The offender pleaded guilty to a charge transferred pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), namely, resisting a territory public official (CC2018/3542) contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code attracting a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment or both.

The offender has asked the court to take into account the following additional offence in sentencing him, namely:

(1) possessing an offensive weapon (CC2018/11398) contrary to s 380(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $1000, imprisonment for 6 months or both.

The schedule containing this charge refers to two principal offences, that is, both the aggravated burglary charges. Neither party addressed the question of whether or not it was possible under Pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to take into account a charge when sentencing for more than one principal offence. I have sentenced him on the basis of the schedule without examining the correctness of the assumption which underlies it. In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the nature of the scheduled charge the issue is not one of significance.

Facts

After 4.30am on 5 March 2018, an employee of Bakers Delight at the Gungahlin Marketplace (‘the marketplace’) called 000 describing two people breaking into the marketplace. The two offenders, Mr Reid and Alexander Dimitrov, had forced entry to the marketplace by smashing the glass automatic doors. The offender was carrying a crow bar. This gives rise to the charge of possess offensive weapon (CC2018/11398) which is to be taken into account. The co-offender, Mr Dimitrov, was carrying a hammer.

Closed-circuit…

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 [2018] ACTSC 368
Case: [2018] ACTSC 368
Decision Date: 14 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Reid, the respondent was charged with two counts of aggravated burglary, committed in company and with a crow bar, as well as resisting a territory public official. The court had to consider the appropriate sentencing for these offences, taking into account the respondent’s criminal history, his use of substances, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The sentencing was conducted under the relevant provisions of the criminal legislation in the respondent’s jurisdiction.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for the respondent's serious criminal activities, while also considering his poor criminal history, significant history of substance abuse, and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors in light of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and the principles of proportionality and justice.

The court considered the respondent's poor criminal history, his use of substances, and the fact that he had pleaded guilty, which mitigated his culpability. The court also took into account the fact that the respondent had significant support programs available to him in the community. Balancing these factors against the gravity of the offences, the court determined that a custodial sentence with a shorter than usual non-parole period was appropriate. The court believed that this sentence would provide the respondent with the necessary time and support to address his substance abuse issues and engage in rehabilitation programs.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that was shorter than would typically be expected for such offences. This decision reflected the court’s assessment of the respondent’s personal circumstances and his potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]

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.