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: | |
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Continue reading R v Ridgeway
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Ridgeway [2018] ACTSC 8
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, given the relevant sentencing principles and the circumstances of the case. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for aggravated robbery, the objective of the sentencing process, and the respondent's personal circumstances. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had adequately considered these factors and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the respondent's personal circumstances. The appellate court emphasised the gravity of the offence, noting the use of a firearm, which significantly heightened the risk of harm to others. Despite the respondent's personal circumstances and his first significant criminal offence, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [20]
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.