R v Rootsey - [2018] ACTSC 63

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rootsey
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 63
Hearing Date:	13 March 2018
DecisionDate:	13 March 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [24]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – plea of guilty – no relevant criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jamie Rootsey (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Mifsud (Crown) Mr J Robertson (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 330 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 7 December 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to a single count of aggravated robbery in the ACT Magistrates Court. He was committed to the ACT Supreme Court for sentence.

The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated robbery is 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $375,000.

The offender was born in 1992. He has a particularly tragic personal history. His parents separated when he was an infant. He lived with his mother and a stepfather. In 1997, his mother died in a motor vehicle accident. The offender and two of his siblings were also in the vehicle. The offender initially remained in the care of his stepfather but was removed from the family home at the age of eight, due to physical abuse.

The offender was placed in many short-term foster care homes and made repeated attempts to return to his family home. This led to him being placed in a foster care group home in Newcastle when he was nine years old. He attempted suicide at the age of 13, apparently due to the separation from his family. He later moved back to Canberra where he initially lived with his stepfather. He was then taken, at the age of 15, to another foster placement. This was successful and he maintains a close relationship with the foster family, who are willing to have him return to their home.

The report from a community paediatrician, dated 30 June 2002, provides a comprehensive history of the offender’s childhood years up to age nine. As mentioned above, it is a tale of significant tragedy.

The offender left school in Year 8 and began a hairdressing apprenticeship. He did not complete his apprenticeship but has enjoyed ongoing employment in the hospitality, construction and carpentry industries. He has also commenced a carpentry apprenticeship.

The offender has been a long time user of cannabis and amphetamines. He started using methylamphetamine when he was 18 years old. He has reported intermittent use of the drug, interspersed with periods of abstinence. He does not appear to have any problem with alcohol.

In 2011, the offender was stabbed seven times by an unidentified attacker. In addition to the physical injuries that he suffered, he developed a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He has other emotional and mental health issues stemming from the death of his mother in 1997 and the subsequent instability of his…

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 Rootsey

Details

AGLC: R v Rootsey [2018] ACTSC 63
Case: [2018] ACTSC 63
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Rootsey involved the defendant, Rootsey, who was found guilty of aggravated robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Rootsey pleaded guilty to the charge, and it was noted that he had no relevant criminal history. The primary dispute was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Rootsey for the crime committed.

The court had to determine the appropriate level of punishment for the offence of aggravated robbery. This involved weighing various factors, including the nature of the offence, the defendant's plea of guilty, and his lack of prior criminal history. The court also had to consider sentencing principles and guidelines established by previous cases and legal authorities.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the impact it had on the victim. However, it also took into account Rootsey's plea of guilty and his clean criminal record. The court found that while the offence was severe, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that was less than the maximum penalty available. The court imposed a sentence that was deemed appropriate under the circumstances, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

The court's final orders were detailed in paragraph [24] of the judgment, which outlined the specific sentence imposed on Rootsey. This included a term of imprisonment and any other conditions or penalties that the court deemed necessary. The judgment provided a clear and reasoned explanation for the sentence, ensuring that all relevant factors had been considered and appropriately weighed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [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.