R v Sharp

Case [2019] ACTSC 175

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Sharp

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 175

Hearing Date:

5 July 2019

DecisionDate:

5 July 2019

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

See [72]–[74].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Intentionally and unlawfully discharging a firearm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for his or her safety – Cause damage to property – Unauthorised possession of firearm – Outlaw Motorcycle Gang – Victim impact – Extensive criminal history – Young age of offender – Subjective considerations include psychological factors.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 27(3)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404(1)

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 43(1)(a)(iii)

Cases Cited:

R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15

R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331
R v Sharp [2019] ACTCA 7

R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Cameron Sharp (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Fernandez (Crown)

J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Boxall Legal (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 1 of 2019

Murrell CJ

Introduction

  1. On 10 March 2017, the offender committed the following offences.

(a)Intentionally and unlawfully discharging a loaded firearm so as to cause another person reasonable apprehension for his or her safety, contrary to s 27(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Causing damage to property, namely a Suzuki Swift, a Mazda 3, and 222 Ellerston Avenue, Isabelle Plains by fire and intending or being reckless about causing that damage, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

(c)Possessing a firearm when not authorised by a licence, permit or otherwise by the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) to do so, contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.

Pleas

  1. After the matters were committed to the Supreme Court for trial but before a trial date was set, the offender indicated at a criminal case conference that he would plead guilty.  The pleas were entered about a week later.  Having regard, among other things, to the utilitarian value of the pleas, the sentences that I would otherwise have imposed will be discounted by at least 15 per cent.

  1. The offender has been in custody since 8 May 2018 in relation to other matters.  He is serving sentences until 8 January 2023, with a non-parole date of 8 March 2021.

Facts

  1. In early 2017, the offender was a nominee or prospect for the ACT chapter of the Comanchero Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (OMCG).  He was in dispute with Mr Turnbull, the sergeant-at-arms of the ACT chapter of the Nomads OMCG.

  1. The AFP obtained warrants for the offender’s mobile telephone and the mobile telephone of a close associate, Mr N.  The content of the offender’s telephone conversations reveals that the offender was aware that his calls were being intercepted.

  1. On 20 February 2017,…

Continue reading R v Sharp

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sharp [2019] ACTSC 175
Case
[2019] ACTSC 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharp involved the defendant, Sharp, who was charged with multiple offences including discharging a firearm to cause reasonable apprehension, causing damage to property, and possessing a firearm without authorisation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Sharp, a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, had a history of criminal activity and was relatively young at the time of the offences. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sharp's actions, which had caused significant distress to the victim and damage to property.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence, considering the gravity of the offences and the circumstances surrounding Sharp. The court needed to weigh the objective factors such as the nature of the offences, the harm caused, and Sharp's criminal history against the subjective factors including his age, psychological state, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact of Sharp's actions on the victim and the community, as well as the implications of his membership in an outlaw motorcycle gang.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of Sharp's actions and the need for deterrence. However, the court also considered the potential for rehabilitation given Sharp's young age and psychological factors. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider the circumstances of each case individually. After careful deliberation, the court determined that a balanced sentence would appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offences while also considering the potential for Sharp's rehabilitation and the broader impact on the community.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs [72] to [74], which outline the specific sentence imposed on Sharp, taking into account all the factors considered during the sentencing process. The court's decision provides a clear example of how courts balance various considerations in determining an appropriate sentence for serious offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [72]–[74].

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.