R v Sullivan (No 2)

[2020] ACTSC 215

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Sullivan (No 2)

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 215

Hearing Date:

6 August 2020

DecisionDate:

7 August 2020

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [32]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery – joint commission with his brother – subject to an intensive correction order at the time of the offences – criminal history – illicit substance use – relatively young offender – sentence of imprisonment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 65

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 35(4)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 45A, 310

Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), s 11

Cases Cited:

R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38

R v Sullivan [2020] ACTSC 214

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Rhys Sullivan (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Howe (Crown)

K Musgrove (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

McKenna Taylor (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 147 of 2018

SCC 64 of 2020

SCC 65 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. The offender, Rhys Sullivan, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)Count 1: joint commission aggravated robbery, contrary to ss 310 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 25 years’ imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both (CC2020/846).

(b)Count 2: attempted joint commission aggravated robbery, contrary to ss 310, 44 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 25 years’ imprisonment, 2500 penalty units or both (SCCAN2020/58).

(c)A transfer charge of trespass on premises in a Territory, contrary to s 11 of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), the maximum penalty being a fine of not more than 10 penalty units (CC2019/13641).

1. I have just sentenced his co-offender, Joshua Sullivan, who is his brother: see R v Sullivan [2020] ACTSC 214.

Facts

1. The facts in relation to both offenders’ offending were agreed. I summarised them in my reasons in R v Sullivan [2020] ACTSC 214 and I adopt what I have said there:

Count 1: Robbery of McDonald’s Wanniassa

4.     During the early hours of 27 December 2019, the co-offenders entered the McDonald’s restaurant in Wanniassa. There were three employees working in the McDonald’s, which was open for business, and a number of customers were in the store.

5.     The co-offenders entered the store through the front entrance. Each offender was carrying a silver-bladed knife with a silver handle and a red and white shopping bag. Both were wearing black face coverings and green and white gloves. Rhys Sullivan was also wearing a black head covering.

6.     The co-offenders walked past the cash registers and into the kitchen area of the restaurant. Rhys Sullivan pointed a knife at one of the employees, who I will refer to as FE, and asked where the money was. She called for the help of another employee, who I will refer to as MS, who was counting money…