R v Stott - [2017] ACTSC 248

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stott
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 248
Hearing Date:	28 July 2017
DecisionDate:	24 August 2017
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [54] – [57] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive‑by shooting – arson to destroy vehicle used to commit shooting – conspiracy to traffic controlled drugs into Alexander Maconochie Centre – recent prevalence of drive-by shootings – need to send message to other potential offenders – no offending since mid-2015 – no evidence of drug use since mid‑2015 – drug rehabilitation program completed in pre-sentence custody – good prospects of rehabilitation – low non-parole period set in recognition of offender’s youth and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 70, 72 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 27(3)(c) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 48, 404(1), 603 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68D
Cases Cited:	Melbom v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 22 Powell v R [2014] NSWCCA 69 Quealey v R [2010] NSWCCA 116 R v Clifton [2016] ACTSC 326 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Harley Dean Stott (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McFarland (Crown) Ms J Vogel (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 206 of 2016; SCC 207 of 2016; SCC 127 of 2017

The offence

Harley Stott has pleaded guilty to three offences as follows:

(a)one count of being knowingly concerned in the use of an offensive weapon against another in circumstances likely to endanger human life, arising under s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and s 45 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and carrying a maximum penalty including 10 years imprisonment;
(b)one count of arson, arising under s 404(1) of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including 15 years imprisonment; and
(c)one count of conspiring to traffic controlled drugs, arising under s 603 and s 48 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including 10 years imprisonment.

Two offences of obstructing or hindering the investigation of an offence were transferred to this Court for sentencing under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) and s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). However, the Crown accepted the two pleas of guilty on the indictment relating to the drive-by shooting and arson incident in full satisfaction of all matters arising out of that incident, and offered no evidence on the transferred charges. Accordingly, I dismiss those charges.

The incidents

February 2015 – offensive weapon and arson charges

The offence of being knowingly concerned in the use of an offensive weapon (which involved Mr Stott being in company with the person who actually used the firearm), and the arson offence, were committed on 2 February 2015 and related to a dispute between Tracey Organ, who owned the house at which the drive-by shooting…

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 [2017] ACTSC 248
Case: [2017] ACTSC 248
Decision Date: 24 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stott involved the defendant, Stott, who was found guilty of various serious offences, including a drive-by shooting, arson to destroy the vehicle used in the shooting, and conspiracy to traffic controlled drugs into the Alexander Maconochie Centre. The case was heard by the court which had to determine the appropriate sentence for these crimes.

The legal issues before the court included whether the recent prevalence of drive-by shootings warranted a strong message to other potential offenders, the defendant’s lack of offending since mid-2015, the absence of evidence of drug use since mid-2015, and the defendant's completion of a drug rehabilitation program while in pre-sentence custody. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant’s youth and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation when determining the non-parole period.

The court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the gravity of the defendant's actions but also recognised the significant changes in his behaviour and circumstances since the offences were committed. It noted the importance of sending a deterrent message to others but balanced this with the defendant's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts and the absence of recent offending. The court set a low non-parole period, recognising the defendant's youth and commitment to rehabilitation. The sentence aimed to reflect both the need for punishment and the potential for reform.

The final orders, as outlined in paragraphs [54] to [57], detail the specific sentencing and non-parole period set for the defendant. The orders reflect the court's comprehensive consideration of the case's facts and the defendant's circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [54] – [57] below.

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.