R v Roberts - [2020] ACTSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Roberts
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 296
Hearing Dates:	2 June; 6 October 2020
DecisionDate:	14 October 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [18]–[24]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – four counts assault occasioning actual bodily harm – pleas of guilty – offences occurred while offender and victims in custody – guarded prospects for rehabilitation – limited remorse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 72
Cases Cited:	R v Roberts [2018] ACTSC 250
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Cedric Roberts (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 187 of 2019; SCC 188 of 2019

BURNS J:

Cedric Roberts, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to four charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. All of these offences occurred on

20 September 2018. You were committed for trial on three of these charges, and an indictment dated 29 August 2019 was presented by the Crown containing three counts. I will refer to those offences in due course by their numbers on the indictment.

A plea of guilty was entered in the ACT Magistrates Court to the fourth charge. I will refer to that by the ACT Magistrates Court number being charge CAN 2019/3904.

A plea of guilty, as I have said, to the charge CAN 2019/3904 was entered in the

ACT Magistrates Court. This was on the fifth mention date. I accept this was an early plea of guilty, and I will reduce the otherwise appropriate sentence by approximately 25 per cent, in order to reflect your plea of guilty. The victim in relation to that was KR.

Counts 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment had pleas of guilty entered on 6 April 2020, although it appears that pleas of guilty had been indicated at an earlier date. I propose to reflect the utilitarian value of those pleas by reducing each of the otherwise appropriate sentences by approximately 15 per cent.

The victim with regard to Count 1 on the indictment was AO. The victim with regard to Count 2 was DT. Finally, the victim with regard to Count 3 was SH.

Each of the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered. For the purposes of sentencing you, I will simply note that these offences occurred in the Alexander Maconachie Centre (AMC) in Hume in the ACT. Three of the offences involved a jugging, when you tipped boiling water mixed with jam and sugar over three victims. The fourth offence occurred subsequent to the jugging when you were confronted by another inmate who was then stabbed in the mouth area with a shiv, being an improvised knife, by you.

The Agreed…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2020] ACTSC 296
Case: [2020] ACTSC 296
Decision Date: 14 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roberts, the appellant, a prisoner at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to four counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victims were fellow inmates, and all offences occurred while the appellant and the victims were in custody. The appellant was sentenced by the court to imprisonment, and subsequently appealed the severity of the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard and determined by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and unjust. The appellant argued that the sentence was too severe given the circumstances of the offences and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation, as well as the need for deterrence in custodial environments.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the offences, including the appellant's limited remorse and guarded prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the need to deter such behaviour in custodial settings. The court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive, given the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's limited prospects for rehabilitation. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court ordered that the sentence imposed by the lower court remain in effect. The court further noted that the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation would need to be closely monitored and supported in order to prevent future incidents of this nature. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining order and safety within custodial environments, and the role of sentencing in achieving these objectives.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]–[24]

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.