R v Schrattenholz

[2017] ACTSC 247

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Schrattenholz

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 247

Hearing Date:

18 August 2017

DecisionDate:

18 August 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [41]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – subjective circumstances – aggravating features of the offence – prospects of rehabilitation – risk of recidivism – specific deterrence – sentence partially suspended

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24

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

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146

R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Holly Cynthia Schrattenholz (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms E Beljic (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)

File Number:

SCC 236 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Offence maximum penalty and plea date

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 Part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The maximum penalty for an offence against s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) would be five years imprisonment.

1. The offender pleaded not guilty and was committed to this Court for trial by the ACT Magistrates Court on 10 October 2016. The offender’s trial was scheduled for

   
   

   18 September 2017.  She pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary on 22 June 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.  They may be summarised as follows.

1. The offender and a Mr David Mundy had a relationship of three years duration which ended upon their separation in mid-February 2016.  There were two children of that relationship.  Following their separation they continued to have shared access to the children. 

1. Prior to his relationship with the offender, Mr Mundy was in a relationship for eight years up until 2011 with Ms Sarah Catt.  Mr Mundy and Ms Catt had two children together: CM, who was in 2016 aged nine years, and JM, who was in 2016 aged four years.

1. The offender and Ms Catt had an amicable relationship for the benefit of their children.

1. Ms Ruby Schrattenholz is the offender’s sister.

1. On 12 April 2016 the offender and her sister Ruby, who I will refer to as the

   
   

   co-offender, began drinking alcohol at a friend’s house.  She communicated with Ms Catt by text message asking if she could spare a cigarette.  Ms Catt was at that point…