R v Steen - [2020] ACTSC 222

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Steen
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 222
Hearing Dates:	7 November 2019; 10 February, 20 April, 29 April 2020
DecisionDate:	2 July 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [80]–[126]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – 21 counts burglary – 19 counts theft – two counts possession of stolen property – one count going equipped for burglary – one count damaging property – pleas of guilty – some moderation of personal and general deterrence – bleak prospects for rehabilitation – importance of community protection
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311, 315(1), 324(1), 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Marshall James Steen (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Sahu-Khan (Crown) S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 150 of 2019; SCC 151 of 2019; SCC 207 of 2019

BURNS J:

Marshall Steen, you have entered pleas of guilty to 21 offences of burglary, 19 offences of theft, one offence of going equipped for burglary, two offences of possession of stolen property and one offence of damaging property. It is now my obligation to sentence you for these offences.

The offences are contained on three Supreme Court files being SCC 150 of 2019,

SCC 151 of 2019 and SCC 207 of 2019. I will deal with the offences in the chronological order in which they were committed and I will refer to each offence by the file number given to it in the ACT Magistrates Court.

Pleas of guilty were entered to all offences in the ACT Magistrates Court. I accept that these were early pleas, possessing a significant utilitarian value and indicating a willingness to facilitate the administration of justice. I will reduce by approximately

25 per cent the sentences that would otherwise be appropriate because of your pleas of guilty.

The maximum penalty for the offence of burglary, contrary to s 311 of the

Criminal Code ACT 2002
(ACT) (the Criminal Code), is 14 years' imprisonment, a fine of $224,000, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code, is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to commit theft or burglary, contrary to s 315(1) of the Criminal Code, is three years' imprisonment, a fine of $48,000, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code, is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both. Finally, the maximum penalty for the offence of possession of property suspected of being stolen, contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code, is six months' imprisonment, a fine of $8,000, or both.

The facts

CC19/5521 and CC19/5522

On 20 September 2017, you committed a burglary and theft at residential premises in Dickson in the…

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 Steen

Details

AGLC: R v Steen [2020] ACTSC 222
Case: [2020] ACTSC 222
Decision Date: 2 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steen involved the respondent, Steen, who had pleaded guilty to a series of criminal offences. These included 21 counts of burglary, 19 counts of theft, two counts of possession of stolen property, one count of going equipped for burglary, and one count of damaging property. The matter was heard and determined by the court. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate sentencing for these serious and numerous offences, taking into account the respondent's pleas of guilty, the need for personal and general deterrence, the bleak prospects for his rehabilitation, and the importance of community protection.

The court approached the sentencing by first acknowledging the respondent's guilty pleas, which warranted some moderation of the sentence. However, the court had to balance this with the necessity of personal and general deterrence, given the frequency and nature of the offences. The court noted the bleak prospects for Steen's rehabilitation and emphasised the importance of protecting the community from further criminal activity. In its assessment, the court considered various sentencing principles and the impact of the crimes on the victims and the community.

After careful consideration, the court determined the appropriate sentence for each offence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The final orders of the court, detailed from [80] to [126], reflect a comprehensive approach to sentencing that balances the respondent's culpability with broader considerations of deterrence and community protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [80]–[126]

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.