R v TF (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v TF (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 327
Hearing Date:	8 December 2020
DecisionDate:	8 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – assistance to authorities – rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 310, 318 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 37
Cases Cited:	R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Heikkinen [2006] NSWCCA 50 R v UD (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 323
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) TF (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 278 of 2019; SCC 281 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On various dates in 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to the following three charges:

(a)Two counts of aggravated robbery by joint commission (CC10430/2018, CC 12847/2018) contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.
(b)One count of joint commission take stolen motor vehicle (CC10431/2018), contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.

There are details of the facts of the three offences in the Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit A). The following is a summary.

The first robbery on 14 June 2010: The assistant manager of the Red Rooster restaurant in Wanniassa closed the establishment at about 10:35pm. He was about to leave in his motor vehicle when one of two offenders pulled the door open and threatened him. The threats, backed up by a 30cm knife, were designed to have the door of the restaurant unlocked.

The victim, under continuing threats from the robbers, opened the safe from which $1500 was stolen. The offenders then attacked assorted electrical equipment in order to disable the CCTV system and the telephone. The victim was then forced to pay the robbers $20 from his own wallet and directed to lie down on the ground. The robbers then departed. They took the victim’s mobile phone and his motor car. The latter is the subject of the driving charge. As suggested by the Crown, I will deal with it concurrently with the robbery but note the activity is an aggravating feature of the robbery.

The second robbery on 16 August 2010: This robbery was committed in company with the offender’s half-brother, UD, and a third man. When sentencing UD I described this offence as follows:

On 16 August 2010 the offender and two other men robbed the Lanyon Vikings Club. The staff were threatened with being shot and patrons were told to “get on the ground” while weapons were being waved around. A security…

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 TF (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v TF (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 327
Case: [2020] ACTSC 327
Decision Date: 8 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal involves TF, the appellant, against the Crown, the respondent. The dispute concerns the sentence imposed on TF for aggravated robbery, with an appeal against the severity of the sentence being made by the appellant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues at hand centred on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the court adequately considered the principles of rehabilitation and the appellant's cooperation with authorities. The court was required to determine if the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's remorse, cooperation with authorities, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court addressed these issues by first examining the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. It was acknowledged that the appellant had engaged in a violent and premeditated act, which warranted a significant sentence. However, the court also considered the appellant's cooperation with authorities, including providing information that led to the arrest of an accomplice, and his expressions of remorse. The court balanced these factors against the need for punishment and rehabilitation. It was determined that while the offence was serious, the appellant's level of cooperation and remorse warranted a sentence that also aimed at his rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the court found that the sentence, though severe, was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that while the appellant's actions were reprehensible, the sentence did reflect the need for punishment and deterrence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and took into account the appellant's cooperation and remorse. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28]

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.