R v Rhodes - [2020] ACTSC 324

Yet

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rhodes
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 324
Hearing Date:	4 December 2020
Decision Date:	4 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [25]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – driving offences – causing grievous bodily harm – early plea
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 312, 318(2) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90A Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(2)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Jenard Jim Rhodes (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
V Conliffe (Crown)
B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 210 of 2020; SCC 211 of 2020
ELKAIM J:

1. On 21 September 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to four charges in the Magistrates Court. The offences were then committed to the Supreme Court on 23 September 2020 to be dealt with under s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).
2. The four offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a) Aggravated burglary with intent to steal (CC7296/2020), contrary to s 312 of the
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment, a
fine of $320,000 or both.

(b) Ride/drive motor vehicle without consent (CC7297/2020), contrary to s 318(2) of
the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of
$80,000 or both.

(c) Causing grievous bodily harm (CC7300/2020), contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act
1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.

(d) Driving unlicenced (CC7299/2020), contrary to s 31(2) of the Road Transport
(Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 6 months’
imprisonment, a fine of $8000 or both.

3.       The Crown Tender Bundle (Exhibit A) contains a detailed statement of the facts. Here is a summary: In the early hours of 15 June 2020 the offender and a 14-year-old girl, essentially lured a Ms Maniaci, then aged 70, to drive them to an address in Tuggeranong in her Toyota Rav 4. She was about to do so when the intended destination was changed to Gungahlin.
4.       Ms Maniaci would not agree to the amendment and asked the two persons to leave the vehicle. They did so.
5.       A little later however the victim heard her motor vehicle being started. She went to the vehicle and took hold of the front passenger door handle. Nevertheless the offender reversed the car out of the garage and drove away. This is the aggravated burglary. I note the vehicle was never returned and later found destroyed by fire.

As the Toyota was being reversed the victim, as a result of the vehicle’s momentum,

fell to the ground. She broke her hip. This is the offence of causing grievous bodily
harm. The Toyota was driven by the offender without a licence.
7. A little later the young person was seen driving the Toyota. The offender was 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 Rhodes

Details

AGLC: R v Rhodes [2020] ACTSC 324
Case: [2020] ACTSC 324
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rhodes was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant was charged with multiple offences including aggravated burglary, driving offences, and causing grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for these serious criminal activities, with the defendant having pleaded guilty to all charges. The court had to weigh various factors, including the defendant's early guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding each offence, to determine an appropriate and just sentence.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were the cumulative effect of the defendant's criminal conduct and the relevance of the early plea in mitigating the severity of the sentence. The court had to consider the principles of totality, which require that the aggregate sentence not exceed the sum of the sentences that would have been imposed if each offence had been considered in isolation. Furthermore, the court had to balance the mitigating factor of the defendant's early plea against the gravity of the offences committed, particularly the element of causing grievous bodily harm.

In its reasoning, the court recognised the defendant's early guilty plea as a significant mitigating factor, which warranted a reduction in the overall sentence. However, it also emphasised the seriousness of the offences, especially the aggravated burglary and the grievous bodily harm caused. The court carefully calculated the appropriate sentences for each offence, ensuring that the total punishment was commensurate with the severity of the defendant's criminal conduct. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appropriate sentence, taking all factors into account, was one that reflected both the need for deterrence and the benefit of the defendant's early plea.

The final orders of the court were detailed at [25], where the specific sentence was outlined, reflecting the court's considered judgment on the appropriate level of punishment for the defendant's criminal activities.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [25]

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.