R v Sharman - [2017] ACTSC 399

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sharman
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 399
Hearing Date:	24 November 2017
DecisionDate:	29 November 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [14] – [19]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm – intending to prevent or hinder a police officer from lawfully investigating act or matter reasonably calling for investigation by officer – high level of risk to others – recklessness – mid-range of offences – driving whilst disqualified as a repeat offender – prior convictions – Pre-Sentence Report – deterrent sentences – pleas of guilty – sentences of imprisonment – summary offences – Good Behaviour Orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 27(4) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	R v O’Neill [2004] ACTSC 64 R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Sharman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Rachel Bird & Co Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 3 of 2017; SCC 4 of 2017; SCC 5 of 2017

BURNS J:

Joshua Kyle Sharman, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to a number of offences. The principal offence is one of using an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm, and at the time intended to prevent or hinder a police officer from lawfully investigating an act or matter that reasonably called for investigation by the officer. That is an offence contrary to s 27(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.

The second significant offence is one of driving whilst disqualified as a repeat offender. That is an offence contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) and is punishable by a fine of $15,000, imprisonment for 12 months, or both. There is also an automatic disqualification period for 24 months or, if the Court orders, a longer period.

You are also to be sentenced with respect to offences of failure to prevent the use of a vehicle with a number plate not attached as required and also failing to stop when requested by police.

An agreed Statement of Facts was tendered at the sentence hearing. I will not now recite the facts. I note that on 4 September 2017, you pleaded guilty to the principal charge and that plea was entered on the day on which you were due to take your trial. On the same day, you pleaded guilty to the summary charges which are now before this Court. On 22 September 2016, you pleaded guilty to the charge of driving whilst disqualified in the Magistrates Court, a plea which was entered at the first mention.

With regard to the objective seriousness of the principal…

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 Sharman

Details

AGLC: R v Sharman [2017] ACTSC 399
Case: [2017] ACTSC 399
Decision Date: 29 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharman involved the defendant, Sharman, who was before the court on charges related to carrying an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm, while also intending to prevent or hinder a police officer from investigating a matter. Additionally, Sharman faced charges of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender, given his prior convictions. The case was heard and determined in an Australian court of criminal jurisdiction.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentences for Sharman, considering the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding them. The key legal issues involved the assessment of the severity and recklessness of the actions, the relevance of the prior convictions, and the need for deterrence. The court also had to consider the pre-sentence report and the principles of sentencing in relation to similar offences.

The court carefully considered the high risk to others presented by Sharman's actions, the mid-range of the offences, and the repeat nature of the driving offence. Despite Sharman's pleas of guilty, which might have warranted a more lenient sentence, the court found it necessary to impose deterrent sentences. The court concluded that imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the need to protect the community and deter future offences. Sharman was also issued with Good Behaviour Orders to further ensure compliance and prevent reoffending.

In summary, the court ordered Sharman to serve sentences of imprisonment for the serious nature of the offences, coupled with Good Behaviour Orders to reinforce the deterrent effect and ensure public safety. The detailed orders are outlined in the court's findings from paragraph [14] to [19].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [14] – [19]

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.