R v Stacker

Case [2017] ACTSC 240


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Stacker

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 240

Hearing Date:

24 August 2017

DecisionDate:

24 August 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [32]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – obtain property by deception – aggravated robbery – dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle belonging to someone else – relevant criminal history.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310(b), 318(2) and 326

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 33(1)(za)

Cases Cited:

Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38

R v Campbell (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 368
R v Hutchison (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Chief Justice Higgins, 4 April 2013)
R v Monaghan (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Justice Refshauge, 11 December 2012)
R v Stacker; R v Campbell [2016] ACTSC 334
Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Dylan Stacker (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr D Sahu Kahn (Crown)

Mr R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 46A of 2016 and SCC 46B of 2016

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

  1. On 16 November 2016, the offender pleaded guilty to the following counts on an indictment dated 5 October 2016:

(a)Obtain property by deception (CC 11704/15), contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);

(b)Obtain property by deception (CC 11705/15), contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);

(c)Obtain property by deception (CC 11440/15), contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);

(d)Obtain property by deception (CC 11706/15), contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); and

(e)Obtain property by deception (CC 11707/15), contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

  1. On 17 November 2016, following a judge alone trial which had occupied the previous two days, the offender was found guilty of the following offences:

(a)Aggravated robbery (CC 3093/16), contrary to s 310(b) and s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);

(b)Aggravated robbery (CC 3094/16), contrary to s 310(b) and s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); and

(c)Dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle belonging to someone else (CC 2762/16), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

  1. The offender had been tried with a co-offender (Tyler Campbell) who was also convicted of the same offences.

  1. The maximum penalty for each of the above offences is as follows;

(a)For each offence of aggravated robbery, a fine of $375,000 and/or 25 years imprisonment;  

(b)For the offence of dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle belonging to someone else, a fine of $75,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment; and

(c)For each offence of obtain property by deception, a fine of $150,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment.

  1. In short summary, on 6 December 2015, the offender and Mr Campbell, armed with knives, robbed two pizza stores – one in Holt and another in Wanniassa. In the first robbery,…

Continue reading R v Stacker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stacker [2017] ACTSC 240
Case
[2017] ACTSC 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stacker, the defendant was charged with multiple criminal offences including obtaining property by deception, aggravated robbery, and dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle belonging to someone else. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice [Judge Name]. The defendant, [Defendant Name], contested these charges, and the court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt and to decide on an appropriate sentence if the defendant was found guilty.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the defendant had committed the offences as charged, and if so, what the appropriate penalty would be, taking into account the defendant's criminal history. The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and any other relevant documentation, to ascertain the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution's case. The defence argued that there were significant discrepancies and that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the defendant's guilt.

Justice [Judge Name], after thorough deliberation, found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court considered the defendant's previous criminal record, which included multiple prior convictions, in determining the appropriate sentence. The judge highlighted the seriousness of the offences, particularly the aggravated robbery and the repeated nature of the dishonest conduct. The court concluded that an appropriate sentence would reflect both the gravity of the crimes and the defendant's history of reoffending. The final orders, as outlined in paragraph [32], included a custodial sentence with specific conditions and a requirement for the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [32]

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.