R v Ridgeway

[2018] ACTSC 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Ridgeway

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 8

Hearing Date:

30 January 2018

DecisionDate:

30 January 2018

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [20]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – pleas of guilty

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310(b)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 11(3)

Cases Cited:

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Joshua Dean Ridgeway (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms A Mifsud (Crown)

Ms B Dunne (Offender)

Solicitors

Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 287 of 2017; SCC 288 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

1. The offender has pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $375,000. The maximum penalty is an indication of the seriousness of these types of offences.

1. The offender was born in 1995. He is still a young man and is currently 22 years old. Notwithstanding his tender years, he already has a criminal record, although primarily containing driving offences.

1. Mr Ridgeway was born in New South Wales. He has three siblings. He did not have a very supportive upbringing. His parents abused drugs, were violent and he was often left alone to raise his siblings. Not surprisingly, he left home at the age of 14.

1. The offender has had one lengthy relationship, which has come to an end. His current relationship is with a woman who is herself on remand in the Alexander Maconochie Centre (‘AMC’). She is currently pregnant with their first child, and is expecting to give birth in June.

1. The offender left school after completing Year 11. He has since completed three years of a panel beating apprenticeship. He was not working when the offences occurred but he does have a reasonable employment history.

1. Although the offender consumes alcohol, he does not apparently do so to excess. Unfortunately, he does use illicit drugs. He is currently on a methadone program at the AMC. He reports that he was under the influence of methylamphetamine (‘ice’) at the time of committing the offences. The pre-sentence report author states that the offender has a medium risk of reoffending, due to his lack of employment and unsavoury colleagues.

1. The first robbery occurred on 21 September 2017, when the offender entered a retail store in Fyshwick. He used a hunting knife from the store to threaten a retail assistant. He left the store with a number of items, for which he had not paid. He was accompanied by a woman who has been charged as a co-offender.

1. On the following day, the offender arranged to meet another man under the guise of purchasing that man’s vehicle. When they were seated in the vehicle, the offender told the man to leave the vehicle and drove away in it. He warned the man not to contact the police. Greater detail of the offences can be found in the Statement of Facts.

1. Mr Ridgeway was arrested on 25 September 2017. He has been in custody in relation to these offences for 127 days. Accordingly, the starting date for sentencing is 25 September 2017.

1. Both robberies involved threats to people who were, no doubt, terrified by their experience. The reason the law takes such a serious view of offences of this type is because of their antisocial nature, their interference with citizens’ ordinary activities and the sheer unacceptability that people working or otherwise carrying on legitimate activities should be threatened and have their lives put at risk.

1. This type of harm was emphasised in R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346.

1. It is important to remember that harm is not restricted to physical harm and that the damage that can be caused to a victim can be extensive and long lasting, even though no physical injuries are caused. The victim of the first robbery, in a victim impact statement, gives details of the kind of mental anguish that can flow from an offence of this type. He talks about experiencing difficulty sleeping, working and the effects upon his social activities. In other words, every aspect of his daily life has been affected by the actions of a person who has disregarded the law, disregarded social norms and thought that it was appropriate for him to steal other people’s possessions.

1. The victim impact statement arising from the second offence includes this passage:

The best way I could describe it is that it was a sort of extreme numbing pain where you had butterflies in your stomach but times that by 1000 where it drenches every cell of your body, not just your stomach. I could feel his knife pierce my body without it actually happening. I felt so sick, isolated, and helpless.

1. As a general statement, it is important to have regard to the objects of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), as stated in s 6, and the purposes of sentencing, as stated in s 7. I am also particularly mindful of s 10, which tells the court that an offender should not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless no other penalty is appropriate.

1. I am very reluctant to send a young man to prison for any extended period of time. As noted above, he has already been in custody for about four months. I do not, however, think that full-time custody can be avoided. The nature of the offences makes an Intensive Corrections Order inappropriate under s 11(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

1. It is important that there be both specific and general deterrence. The all too common practice of drug users committing robberies must be condemned and those people who take drugs must know that being under the influence of drugs will not lessen their culpability.

1. The two offences occurred close together in time which, together with the principles of totality, require that a degree of concurrency be applied to the sentences. The hope for rehabilitation and the possibility of the offender being able to form a relationship with his soon to be born child have influenced the term of imprisonment that I will impose.

1. The parties submitted that the second offence was more serious than the first, in particular because it included some elements of planning and sophistication. I think both offences are of about medium objective severity and, while there is a distinction between them, I do not think it necessarily justifies a different sentence for each.

1. I intend to impose a sentence of 18 months for each robbery. This has been discounted from 24 months to reflect the discount for the pleas of guilty.

1. I make the following orders:

(a)In respect of count 1, aggravated robbery (CC 2017/10655), the offender is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment commencing on 25 September 2017 and ending on 24 March 2019.  

(b)In respect of the offence of aggravated robbery (CC 2017/10654), the offender is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment commencing on 25 September 2018 and ending on 24 March 2020.  

(c)The total sentence is 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  

(d)I set a non-parole period of 18 months’ commencing on 25 September 2017 and ending on 24 March 2019.  

I certify that the preceding twenty [20] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 30 January 2018