R v Spencer - [2014] ACTSC 364

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Luke Scott Spencer
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 364
Hearing Date(s):	26 July 2013, 2, 30 August 2013, 26 September 2013, 15 November 2013, 7 February 2014, 29 April 2014, 23 June 2014, 15 August 2014, 23, 30 September 2014
DecisionDate:	25 November 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	(1) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Nicholls on 13 February 2012. (2) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014. (3) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Nicholls on 13 February 2012. (4) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary. (5) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2012. (6) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to twelve months on the sentence for the first burglary. (7) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2014. (8) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2016. (9) The sentence be suspended for a period of two years from 10 March 2015. (10) Luke Scott Spencer be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from 10 March 2015, with the following conditions: a) A probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him for two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him as to mental health treatment and counselling, drug treatment and counselling and vocational training; and b) A condition that he remain on the methadone program until the officer in charge of that program considers it appropriate that his participation should end.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Burglary – Theft
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33, Pt 4.2 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 4733
Cases Cited:	Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740 R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Scott Spencer (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Reardon (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions…

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 Spencer

Details

AGLC: R v Spencer [2014] ACTSC 364
Case: [2014] ACTSC 364
Decision Date: 25 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Scott Spencer was convicted of two burglaries and two thefts. The burglaries occurred at premises in Nicholls and Ngunnawal on 13 February 2012 and 24 February 2012 respectively, and the thefts occurred at the same premises on the same dates. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentences for these offences. The legal issues included the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the impact on the community. The court also considered the principles of parity and cumulative sentencing.

The court found that the offences were serious, given the defendant’s criminal history and the impact on the victims. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and the importance of holding the defendant accountable for his actions. The court also considered the defendant’s prospects for rehabilitation and his likelihood of reoffending. The court imposed concurrent sentences for the first burglary and theft, and cumulative sentences for the second burglary and theft, taking into account the defendant’s criminal history and the need for deterrence. The court also imposed a suspended sentence for the second theft, with conditions aimed at promoting the defendant’s rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending.

The court ordered that the defendant be convicted of the first burglary and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment, the first theft and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to be wholly concurrent, the second burglary and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to be cumulative as to twelve months on the sentence for the first burglary, and the second theft and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2016, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the second burglary. The sentence was suspended for a period of two years from 10 March 2015, and the defendant was required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations for a period of two years from 10 March 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(2) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014.

(3) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Nicholls on 13 February 2012.

(4) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for the burglary.

(5) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the burglary of a house in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2012.

(6) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to twelve months on the sentence for the first burglary.

(7) Luke Scott Spencer be convicted of the theft of property from the premises in Ngunnawal on 24 February 2014.

(8) For that offence, Luke Scott Spencer be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment to commence on 11 September 2016.

(9) The sentence be suspended for a period of two years from 10 March 2015.

(10) Luke Scott Spencer be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from 10 March 2015, with the following conditions:

a) A probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him for two years, or such lesser period as that person considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him as to mental health treatment and counselling, drug treatment and counselling and vocational training; and

b) A condition that he remain on the methadone program until the officer in charge of that program considers it appropriate that his participation should end.

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.