R v Ruby Schrattenholz

[2017] ACTSC 416

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Ruby Schrattenholz

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 416

Hearing Date:

31 October 2017

DecisionDate:

31 October 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [29]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – scheduled offences – burglary committed in company – intention to do harm to person within the premises burgled – victim’s children present – prospects of rehabilitation – no criminal history – no history of use of illicit drugs – no history of antisocial behaviour – offender has recently had a young child – no penalty other than imprisonment appropriate – suspended sentence and Good Behaviour Order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Pt 4.4

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312

Cases Cited:

R v Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 247

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Ruby Mae Schrattenholz (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

V Conliffe (Crown)

J Moffett (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Pubic Prosecutions (Crown)

Prudential Legal Solutions (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 175 of 2016

SCC 176 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction 

1. The offender has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment or $300,000 or both. An additional offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm has been included in a schedule which is to be taken into account pursuant to Pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The maximum penalty for an offence against s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is five years’ imprisonment.

1. The offender pleaded not guilty and was committed to this Court for trial by the ACT Magistrates Court on 3 August 2016. The offender’s trial was scheduled for
   18 September 2017 but she pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary on 29 August 2017. The plea of guilty was therefore not at an early stage but does have substantial utilitarian value.

Facts

1. The facts are set out in an agreed statement of facts.  I have also summarised them in R v Schrattenholz [2017] ACTSC 247 at [3]-[12], there with a focus on Holly Schrattenholz, who I will refer to in these reasons as the co-offender. The facts may be summarised as follows.

1. The offender and the co-offender are sisters.

1. The complainant and Mr David Mundy were in a relationship for about eight years but separated in 2011. The relationship produced two children, DO, aged nine years old, and KO, aged four years old. The complainant and Mr Mundy have shared access to the children.

1. Approximately three years ago, Mr Mundy began a relationship with the co-offender, which also produced two children. The co-offender and complainant had, at the relevant time, an amicable relationship for the benefit of their children. In mid‑February 2016, the co‑offender and Mr Mundy separated but continued shared access to the…