SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Steen |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 259 |
Hearing Date: | 31 July 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 18 August 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge J |
Decision: | 1. Marshall James Steen be convicted of the offence of burglary committed on 29 June 2014. 2. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence he is currently serving. 3. Marshall James Steen be convicted of theft on 29 June 2014. 4. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for burglary in order 2. 5. Marshall James Steen be convicted of minor theft on 29 June 2014. 6. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for burglary in order 2. 7. A non‑parole period be set to commence on 8 July 2014 and to end on 23 July 2017. |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – sentence – burglary – theft – minor theft – extensive criminal history – long history of imprisonment – history of drug addiction – seeking rehabilitation – cancelation of non-parole period – calculation of non-parole period – no realistic prospect of payment of a compensation order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act, ss 7, 33, 61(3), 65(3), 65(4), 66(2), 66(3), 66(4), 68, Pt 4.4 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311, 321 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), Pt 8 |
Cases Cited: | Allred v R (2015) 10 ACTLR 325 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 |
Continue reading R v Steen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 259
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the calculation of the non-parole period, the cumulative or concurrent nature of the sentences, and the consideration of a compensation order. The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal history and his drug addiction as mitigating factors. The court also noted that there was no realistic prospect of the defendant being able to pay a compensation order.
The court decided to set a non-parole period to commence on 8 July 2014 and to end on 23 July 2017. The sentences for burglary, theft, and minor theft were ordered to be served concurrently, with the burglary sentence being two years and six months and the theft and minor theft sentences being 18 months and three months respectively, all to commence on 24 October 2019. The court took into account the defendant's need for rehabilitation and his extensive history of imprisonment and drug addiction.
The final orders were that Marshall James Steen be convicted of the offence of burglary, theft, and minor theft, and be sentenced to imprisonment for the aforementioned periods, with the non-parole period set to commence on 8 July 2014 and to end on 23 July 2017.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Marshall James Steen be convicted of the offence of burglary committed on 29 June 2014.
2. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the sentence he is currently serving.
3. Marshall James Steen be convicted of theft on 29 June 2014.
4. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for burglary in order 2.
5. Marshall James Steen be convicted of minor theft on 29 June 2014.
6. Marshall James Steen be sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 24 October 2019; that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for burglary in order 2.
7. A non‑parole period be set to commence on 8 July 2014 and to end on 23 July 2017.
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.