R v Sikounnabouth

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Sikounnabouth

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 119

Hearing Date:

9 May 2019

DecisionDate:

9 May 2019

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [17]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – aggravated burglary – accessory after the fact to murder – pleas of guilty

Legislation: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 66

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310, 312, 717

Cases cited:

R v Sikounnabouth [2018] ACTSC 296

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Phouthakone Sikounnabouth (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Williamson (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal on London (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 243 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

1. On 22 February 2019, the offender entered a plea of guilty to the following three charges in an indictment dated 21 February 2019:

(a)Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment and, or a fine of $300,000.

(b)Aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment and, or a fine of $375,000.

(c)Accessory after the fact to murder, contrary to s 717 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment and, or a fine of $300,000.

1. The offender has not spent any time in custody in respect of the current offences, however I note that he is currently a sentenced prisoner after being sentenced on unrelated offences by Loukas-Karlsson J in October 2018 (R v Sikounnabouth [2018] ACTSC 296).

1. His head sentence will expire on 21 January 2020. The non-parole period, which expires on 21 July 2019, will need to be reset pursuant to section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

1. The pleas of guilty, while not made at the earliest opportunity, nevertheless are of significant utilitarian value. I assess the appropriate discount at approximately 20%.

1. The facts of the offences are set out in considerable detail in the Statement of Facts, forming part of Exhibit A. It can immediately be seen that they involve the pernicious world of drug dealing where the pursuit of drugs and the monies attached to their trafficking extinguish all vestiges of decency and respect for the well-being of other persons.

1. In very brief summary the first charge in the indictment relates to the offender and two other men entering a flat where the occupants were attacked. The offender was armed with a metal bat. The other two had a gun and a machete. While it is accepted that the offender did not cause great harm with the metal bat there is no doubt that significant harm was caused by the other co-offenders.

1. Three months later, now dealing with the second charge, the two co-offenders were driven to the same location by this offender. The co-offenders were…