SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Sullivan |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 38 |
Hearing Date: | 30 January 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 30 January 2019 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [15] |
Catchwords: . | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated robbery – extensive criminal history – good prospects for rehabilitation – sentence served by way of intensive correction order – general deterrence – substance abuse |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 42 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11(3) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310(b) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Rhys Sullivan (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Stewart (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 147 of 2018 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
Rhys Sullivan pleaded guilty to a single charge of aggravated robbery (CC2018/3645) contrary to section 310(b) of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT). He stole $500 from the Red Rooster store in Wanniassa and during the course of the robbery had a knife with him. The maximum penalty is 2500 penalty units or imprisonment for 25 years or both. The offence occurred on 31 January 2018.
Facts
The facts relating to the offending conduct were agreed. In summary they were as follows. At about 9:45pm on 31 January 2018, the offender entered the Red Rooster takeaway restaurant in Wanniassa. He approached a staff member who was mopping the floor just to the left of the front entrance and produced a large hunting knife. He was wearing a hooded jumper and black mask which covered his mouth and nose. He was wearing clear latex gloves. The knife that he held was a large hunting knife which was 20 to 30cm long. The staff member moved towards the front counter and called out for her manager who was working in the kitchen area. The offender approached the front counter and told the manager who was behind it to “put the money in the bag”. The manager asked whether the offender was armed and he waved the hunting knife around in an aggressive manner saying “it’s a real knife. This is it. It will hurt you” and “don’t push me”. The manager said there was no money in the front cash register but that he should follow him to get the money. The manager walked to the safe with the offender. The offender told him to put the money in the bag. The manager put about $500 in various denominations into a plastic shopping bag that the offender had whilst the offender was telling him to hurry up. The offender left the premises and ran towards Athllon Drive Wanniassa. The police were called. Police found a latex glove of a type not used by Red Rooster staff. This was later forensically tested and a forensic biologist concluded that the DNA found in the glove was 100 billion times more likely to be that of the offender than another person selected at random from…
Continue reading R v Sullivan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court was required to decide centred around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police search, and the proportionality of the sentence imposed. Sullivan's counsel argued that the evidence should be excluded on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his client's rights under the Australian Constitution. Additionally, it was contended that the sentence was excessively harsh given the circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors present.
In its judgment, the High Court addressed the admissibility of the evidence by examining the procedures followed by the police during the search. The court found that while there were some procedural irregularities, they did not render the evidence inadmissible under the principles of the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence. The court also scrutinised the sentencing process and concluded that, while the offence was serious, the sentence was not manifestly excessive when considering all relevant factors. The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no grounds for interference by the appellate court.
The court's decision concluded with the affirmation of the lower court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence stood as originally determined. The respondent, Sullivan, was to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court, with no alteration in the terms or conditions of his punishment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [15]
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.