R v Stephen - [2020] ACTSC 283

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stephen
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 283
Hearing Date:	13 October 2020
DecisionDate:	15 October 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [66]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – mid to upper range of objective seriousness – aggravated burglary – driving while disqualified – above mid range of objective seriousness – attempt to take a motor vehicle without consent – driving a motor vehicle without consent – mid range of objective seriousness – possessing a prohibited firearm – low range of objective seriousness – offending related to aggravated burglary of a residential premises – offender inflicted very serious injuries on the victim – extensive criminal history – offending driven by drug addiction – consideration of the costs of such offending – sentences of full-time imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 312, 318 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 42 Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32
Cases Cited:	R v Henry [2018] ACTSC 34 R v Hutchinson [2014] ACTCA 29 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Krook [2020] ACTSC 93 R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48 NSWLR 327 R v Torbert [2015] ACTSC 331
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Stephen (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee (Crown) M Lalor (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 1 of 2020 SCC 2 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Joshua Stephen, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)Count 1: aggravated burglary (CC2019/7589), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $320,000 or both.
(b)Count 2: attempting to take a motor vehicle without consent (SCCAN2020/37), contrary to ss 44(1) and 318(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.
(c)Count 3: recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm (SCCAN2020/133), contrary to s 20(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 13 years’ imprisonment.
(d)Count 4: possessing a prohibited firearm (SCCAN2020/38), contrary to s 42(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(e)Count 5: driving a motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/7590), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.

The offender also pleaded guilty to a transfer charge of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender (CC2019/7591), contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $16,000 or both. There is an automatic disqualification period of 24 months.

Facts

The facts were agreed and are, in…

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 Stephen

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen [2020] ACTSC 283
Case: [2020] ACTSC 283
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stephen was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Stephen was charged with multiple offences, including recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary, driving while disqualified, attempting to take a motor vehicle without consent, driving a motor vehicle without consent, and possessing a prohibited firearm. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for these criminal activities, particularly in light of Stephen's extensive criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the offences.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were the appropriate range of objective seriousness for each offence and how these should be aggregated in determining an overall sentence. Given the extensive injuries inflicted on the victim, the court considered whether any of the offences warranted a higher range of objective seriousness. Additionally, the court needed to consider Stephen's extensive criminal history, his drug addiction, and the broader societal impact of his offending.

The court determined that the recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm and the aggravated burglary warranted a mid to upper range of objective seriousness due to the severity of the injuries and the nature of the crime. The court found that the attempt to take a motor vehicle without consent and the driving a motor vehicle without consent warranted a mid range of objective seriousness, while possessing a prohibited firearm warranted a low range of objective seriousness. The court also considered the cumulative impact of these offences, which were all related to the aggravated burglary of a residential premises. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for Stephen was full-time imprisonment, taking into account his extensive criminal history and the societal costs of his offending.

The final orders of the court were detailed in [66], which included the specific sentences for each offence and the overall term of imprisonment. The court emphasised the need for rehabilitation and deterrence, given the repetitive nature of Stephen's offending and the harm caused to the victim.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [66]

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.