R v Roberts - [2018] ACTSC 250

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Roberts
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 250
Hearing Dates:	13 December 2017; 16 February 2018; 15 March 2018
DecisionDate:	29 March 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [50]-[60]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – numerous offences – attempting to escape from lawful custody – resisting a territory official in the exercise of their function – aggravated robbery – two offences of escaping from lawful custody – two offences of common assault – possessing an offensive weapon in a public place – dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent – driving in a way dangerous in circumstances of aggregation – failing to comply with a request of a police officer stop as a first offender – two offences of arson – criminal history – Pre-Sentence Report – CADAS Assessment – report from consultant psychiatrist – objective seriousness – age – rehabilitation – general deterrence – specific deterrence – shorter than usual non-parole period – recommendation to Sentence Administrate Board – guilty pleas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 160, 380(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310(b), 361(1) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 5C, 7(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Cedric Roberts (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K McCann (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 270 of 2016; SCC 12 of 2017; SCC 13 of 2017; SCC 23 of 2018

BURNS J:

Cedric Roberts, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to numerous offences. On Supreme Court file SCC 12 of 2017 you are to be sentenced for one offence of attempting to escape from lawful custody (CC2016/11179), contrary to s 160 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of 100 penalty units, or both. You are also to be sentenced for an offence of resisting a territory official in the exercise of their function (CC2016/11178), contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, a fine of 200 penalty units, or both.

On Supreme Court file number SCC 270 of 2016 you are to be sentenced for an offence of aggravated robbery (CC2016/8841), contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, a fine of 2500 penalty units, or both. You are also to be sentenced for two offences of escaping from lawful custody (CC2016/8842; CC2016/08849), contrary to s 160 of the Crimes Act, both of which carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of 100 penalty units, or both.

You are also to be sentenced for two offences of common assault (CC2016/8843; CC2016/8844), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, each of which…

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 [2018] ACTSC 250
Case: [2018] ACTSC 250
Decision Date: 29 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a criminal matter involving the defendant, Roberts, who was facing a multitude of charges including attempting to escape from lawful custody, resisting a territory official, aggravated robbery, multiple counts of escaping from lawful custody and common assault, possessing an offensive weapon in public, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, driving dangerously, failing to comply with a police officer's stop request as a first offender, and two counts of arson. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court which was tasked with deciding various legal issues arising from these charges.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address involved determining the appropriate sentence for Roberts, given the extensive list of charges and the defendant's criminal history. The court was required to consider factors such as the objective seriousness of the offences, Roberts' age, potential for rehabilitation, and the principles of general and specific deterrence. Additionally, the court had to assess the recommendations from the Pre-Sentence Report, the CADAS Assessment, and the report from the consultant psychiatrist, all of which provided insights into Roberts' background and potential for reform.

The court meticulously evaluated each of these factors, weighing them against the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court found that while the offences were severe and numerous, there were mitigating factors such as Roberts' age and the potential for rehabilitation. Considering these aspects, the court determined that a sentence shorter than the usual non-parole period was appropriate, reflecting a balanced approach between punishment and rehabilitation. The court also made recommendations to the Sentence Administrate Board, taking into account Roberts' guilty pleas and the overall context of the case.

The court concluded by outlining the final orders, which included a detailed sentencing plan that incorporated the findings and recommendations made during the hearing. The orders reflected a comprehensive approach to sentencing, aiming to address the defendant's criminal conduct while also considering his potential for rehabilitation and other mitigating factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50]-[60]

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.