SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Stacker |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 219 |
Hearing Date: | 15 August 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 15 August 2019 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [28] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery by joint commission – weapon offences –firearm – burglary – damage property – pleas of guilty |
Legislation Cited: | Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42(a)(iii) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310, 311, 403(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6,7, 10, 33 |
Cases Cited: | Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 R v Campbell (Unreported, Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory, Justice Refshauge, 24 April 2009) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Dylan Stacker (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel M Fernandez (Crown) A Doig (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 152 of 2018; SCC 262 of 2018; SCC 110 of 2019 |
ELKAIM J:
On 14 May 2019, the offender was committed for sentence from the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), for the following two offences:
(a) Unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm (CC2019/712), contrary to s 42(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
(b) Aggravated robbery (CC2019/1103), contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $375,000, or both.
These offences relate to an incident on 7 January 2019.
On 29 May 2019, the offender was arraigned on two separate indictments dated 5 July 2018 and 9 November 2018. He entered pleas of guilty to the following three offences:
(a) Damaging property (CC 2018/2149), contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both.
(b) Burglary (CC 2018/2148), contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $210,000, or both.
(c) Aggravated robbery by joint commission (CC 2018/6762) contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45A. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $375,000, or both.
On 28 January 2018 the offender and another man held up an IGA supermarket in Isabella Plains. The offender was armed with a kitchen knife. They obtained cash in the sum of $3046. This is the aggravated robbery (CC2018/6762).
There is a victim impact statement from one of the IGA workers. He was a school student working in his first job. His statement, to some degree, minimises the effects upon him. There is however another statement from his mother. It provides a more comprehensive picture of the effects on her son.
On 31 January 2018 the offender…
Continue reading R v Stacker
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Stacker [2019] ACTSC 219
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to balance the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution when considering the appropriate punishment. Stacker's participation in a joint commission of aggravated robbery, the use of a firearm during the commission of the crime, and the additional offences of burglary and property damage all contributed to the gravity of the situation. The court had to assess the totality of Stacker's criminal conduct, his guilty pleas, and any mitigating factors that may have been present. The legal principles guiding the court's decision-making process included the maximum penalties for each offence, the potential for cumulative sentencing, and the principles of proportionality and individualisation.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the crimes committed by Stacker, particularly the use of a firearm which significantly aggravated the robbery. The court recognised that Stacker's guilty pleas demonstrated some level of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, which could be considered in mitigation. However, the court ultimately determined that a substantial custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to serve the purposes of deterrence and protection of the community. The court sentenced Stacker to a total of 15 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years, considering the totality of the circumstances and the need for just punishment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [28]
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.