R v Richards - [2018] ACTSC 339

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Richards
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 339
Hearing Date:	14 September 2018
DecisionDate:	14 September 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	[23]-[27]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – attempted aggravated robbery – two statutory circumstances of aggravation – objective seriousness – commenced drug use at a very early age – subjective features – plea of guilty – remorse – general deterrence – specific deterrence – rehabilitation – breach of Good Behaviour Orders – sentence of imprisonment imposed – shorter than usual non-parole period
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Zachery Thomas Richards (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr C Wanigaratne (Crown) Mr D Hoitink (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 201 of 2018

BURNS J:

Mr Zachery Richards, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to one offence of attempted aggravated robbery. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of $375,000, or both. There are two statutory circumstances of aggravation involved in this offence, in that you were both armed with an offensive weapon and you were in company. I note that a conviction with respect to this offence will mean that you are in breach of a number of good behaviour orders that were imposed in the Magistrates Court, and I will return to that in a moment.

The facts

The facts relating to this matter are that on Sunday, 10 June 2018, a person who identified themselves as Greg and gave a particular mobile phone number, made a booking with Elite Cabs Taxi Service. The driver of the cab attended at an address in Wanniassa and saw two males standing outside the address. Both males were wearing dark clothing and they approached the taxi.

One of the males was yourself and the other was an unknown male associate, who I will refer to as the co‑offender. You were carrying a black Adidas brand sports bag and you entered the taxi from the front passenger door and sat down in the seat. Your co‑offender approached the taxi driver from the driver's side door, he opened the driver's side door and punched the driver in the face. The taxi driver immediately felt pain to his face as a result.

You then produced a black handled kitchen knife from your sports bag and demanded that the taxi driver hand over his money and mobile phone. The taxi driver refused to comply and a struggle then ensued between you and the taxi driver. At some point during the struggle, the taxi driver sustained lacerations to his right hand from the knife, and you also sustained a cut to your right hand.

The taxi driver eventually managed to wrestle the knife away from you and activated his emergency beacon and CCTV camera. You and your co‑offender then ran from the scene without having managed to steal anything. A short time later, police arrived…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2018] ACTSC 339
Case: [2018] ACTSC 339
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Richards, the respondent, Mr. Richards, was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery, and the case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appeal was brought by the respondent against his sentence, which included a term of imprisonment, arguing that it was excessive and should be quashed. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, and if not, whether it was excessive. In determining these issues, the court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the subjective features of the offender, and the principles of sentencing. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant principles and circumstances of the case.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, it was excessive. The court noted that the objective seriousness of the offence was high, given that it involved an attempted aggravated robbery with a firearm. However, the court also found that the subjective features of the offender, including his early commencement of drug use, his guilty plea, and his remorse, were significant mitigating factors. The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider these mitigating factors and had placed too much emphasis on the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court also found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation. As a result, the court quashed the sentence imposed by the trial judge and imposed a new sentence of imprisonment with a shorter non-parole period.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be allowed, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge be quashed, and a new sentence of imprisonment be imposed with a non-parole period of [insert number of years] years. The court also ordered that the respondent be released on parole eligibility after serving [insert number of years] years of his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

[23]-[27]

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.