SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 305 |
Hearing Dates: | 28 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 2 November 2018 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | See [141] – [142]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – recklessly inflict actual bodily harm – intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – home invasion in company – presence of firearms - co-accused – parity – youth of offenders – offenders on conditional liberty at time of offences – youth of victim an aggravating factor CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm - plea of guilty CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – take motor vehicle – unlawful possession of stolen property – theft – driving motor vehicle without consent - damaging property – possession of Cannabis – possession of methylamphetamine – unauthorised possession of stolen property – unauthorised possession of ammunition – possession of an unregistered prohibited firearm – transferred offences – plea of guilty - parity - consideration of s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 23, 31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33, 112 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 305
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the parity principle when sentencing co-offenders, the youth of the offenders, and the specific aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court needed to balance the need for deterrence and punishment with considerations of the offenders' age and background. Additionally, the court had to address the sentencing for the unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm and other associated offences, including theft, driving without consent, property damage, and drug possession.
In its reasoning, the court highlighted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the home invasion and the presence of firearms. The court acknowledged the youth of the offenders and the fact that they were on conditional liberty at the time of the offences. However, it also noted the aggravating factor of the victim's youth. The court considered the need for parity in sentencing the co-offenders and applied the relevant statutory provisions, including section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for both punishment and deterrence.
The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraphs [141] to [142], upheld the original sentences imposed on the appellants, with specific considerations given to the principles of parity and the sentencing guidelines provided by the relevant legislation.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [141] – [142].
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.