R v Stott - [2020] ACTSC 284

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stott
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 284
Hearing Date:	30 September 2020
DecisionDate:	15 October 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [18]–[21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – trial by judge alone – unlawful confinement – making a demand accompanied by a threat – recidivist offender – guarded prospects for rehabilitation – lack of remorse – consideration of Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 32(2) and 34 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45A
Cases Cited:	R v Evans; R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 220
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Sharon Stott (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee (Crown) S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 90 of 2019

BURNS J:

Sharon Stott, you appear before me today to be sentenced for one offence of unlawful confinement, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), and one offence of making a demand accompanied by a threat, contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. Both offences occurred on 18 January 2019. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. I found these offences proved after a trial by judge alone in May and June 2020. I handed down my findings on 14 August 2020: R v Evans; R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 220.

In brief, I am satisfied that as part of a joint criminal enterprise you and your co-offender unlawfully confined the victim at an address in suburban Canberra for approximately one hour on 18 January 2019. During this unlawful confinement, you made demands of the victim that he pay you the sum of $20,000. You represented to the victim that this was a debt which he had owed you for 10 years. I am satisfied that there was no debt and you invented the supposed debt as a pretext to extort money from the victim. Your co-offender was armed with a baseball bat and made multiple threats to cause serious physical injury to the victim during the period that he was unlawfully confined and during which you were demanding that he pay you the $20,000. As I said in my judgment on 14 August 2020, I am satisfied that you and your co-offender were acting in concert as part of an agreement to stand over the victim, by which I mean that there was an agreement that you would make demands that the victim pay you money while your co-offender would make threats to the victim with a view to encouraging him to meet the demands you made. This plan unravelled when your co-offender commenced attacking the victim with the baseball bat, resulting in the victim moving into the kitchen of the premises and obtaining a knife.…

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 Stott

Details

AGLC: R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 284
Case: [2020] ACTSC 284
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Stott, was convicted of unlawful confinement and making a demand accompanied by a threat. The case was heard by a judge alone in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, and Mr Stott now appeals his conviction and sentence. The appeal focuses on the proportionality of the sentence and the consideration of an alternative sentencing option, specifically an Intensive Correction Order (ICO).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge failed to consider an ICO as a viable sentencing alternative. The court had to examine whether the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed and if the judge adequately considered all sentencing options, including an ICO, given the appellant's history of reoffending and the absence of remorse.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the appellant's criminal history and prospects for rehabilitation. It was noted that the appellant had a history of reoffending, which indicated a significant risk of reoffending. The court also highlighted the appellant's lack of remorse, which further supported the need for a punitive and deterrent sentence. In evaluating the proportionality of the sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for deterrence. Regarding the ICO, the court found that the trial judge had reasonably concluded that an ICO was not suitable given the appellant's history and the seriousness of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence and found no error in the trial judge's consideration of sentencing options, including the rejection of an ICO. The trial judge's decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment was considered appropriate and proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]–[21]

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.