Sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of four years’ imprisonment.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –trespass – burglary – theft – aggravated burglary – aggravated dangerous driving – drive or ride in motor vehicle without consent – take motor vehicle without consent – arson – drive while suspended – obtain property by deception – possess firearms without authorisation – possess offensive weapon – possess prohibited weapon – damage property – unlawful possession of stolen property – possess drug of dependence – assault frontline community service provider – obstruct territory public official – where offender is a young adult – where offender has background of severe disadvantage
The offender pleaded guilty to 50 offences. Pursuant to Part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Act) 2005 (ACT), 26 additional offences are to be taken into account in sentencing the offender for some of the 50 offences.
The offences occurred in October 2019, December 2019, March 2020, April 2020, December 2020, and January 2021.
[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 Rosewarne
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217
Case
[2021] ACTSC 217
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender Rohan Allan Rosewarne pleaded guilty to 50 offences committed between October 2019 and January 2021. The court considered 26 additional offences in sentencing for some of the 50 offences. The offences include trespass, burglary, theft, aggravated burglary, aggravated dangerous driving, driving without consent, arson, driving while suspended, obtaining property by deception, possessing firearms without authorisation, possessing offensive and prohibited weapons, damaging property, unlawful possession of stolen property, possessing a drug of dependence, assaulting a frontline community service provider, and obstructing a territory public official. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, considering factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offences, the degree of planning, and the impact on victims. The court also considered subjective factors, including the offender's age, background of severe disadvantage, and potential for rehabilitation. The offender is a young adult with a history of abuse, neglect, and trauma. He has been involved with juvenile justice authorities since a young age and has a history of substance abuse. The court accepted that the offender's moral culpability was somewhat reduced due to his background. The court imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of four years’ imprisonment. The offender is to be released to a supervised therapeutic environment. The court also disqualified the offender from holding or obtaining a driver licence until the disqualification is set aside under s 65(3). The court declined to make a reparation order due to the length of incarceration and the financial position of the offender.