R v Tracey - [2020] ACTSC 28

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Tracey
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 28
Hearing Date:	10 February 2020
DecisionDate:	10 February 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [50]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – charges relate to breaking into four homes – burglary and aggravated burglary – theft – obtain property by deception – assault – possess knife – possess offensive weapon – proceeds of crime to support methamphetamine use – very poor criminal history – guarded prospects of rehabilitation but recent commitment to rehabilitation – short non-parole period
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 381(1), 382(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311, 312, 326
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ronald Tracey (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren (Crown) J de Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 216 of 2019 SCC 218 of 2019 SCC 316 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Ronald Tracey, has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to the following indictable offences:

(a) one count of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the maximum penalty being 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both (CC2019/2798);

(b) one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty being 20 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both (CC2019/3448);

(c) two counts of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty being 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both (CC2019/6609, CC 2019/8135); and

(d) two counts of burglary contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty being 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both (CC2019/8904, CC2019/8085).

He has also pleaded guilty to the following related summary offences:

(a) one count of possessing a knife without a reasonable excuse contrary to s 382(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty being six months’ imprisonment, 10 penalty units or both (CC2019/2800);

(b) one count of assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, the maximum penalty being two years’ imprisonment (CC2019/3444); and

(c) one count of possession of an offensive weapon contrary to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act, the maximum penalty being one years’ imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both (CC2019/8905).

Facts

The circumstances giving rise to the offences involve the offender entering into four different homes without permission of the residents.

Residence One

On the morning of 8 February 2019 BL left his residence in Anthony Rolfe Avenue, Gungahlin, to go on holiday. He returned on 22 February 2019. He had left his residence tidy, locked and secure. He returned to find it with a mess of items and clothing on the floor. Drawers and cupboards were left open and the contents of the desk in the study and bedroom drawers had been tipped onto…

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 Tracey

Details

AGLC: R v Tracey [2020] ACTSC 28
Case: [2020] ACTSC 28
Decision Date: 10 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tracey, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple criminal offences, including burglary, theft, deception, assault, and possession of an offensive weapon. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had broken into four homes, stealing property and using deception to obtain more. During the commission of these offences, he assaulted a person and was found to be in possession of a knife. The appellant used the proceeds of his crimes to support a methamphetamine addiction.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the appellant’s extensive criminal conduct. The court needed to weigh the severity and nature of the crimes, the appellant’s criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The appellant’s counsel argued that while his criminal history was poor, the appellant had recently shown a commitment to rehabilitation, which should be considered in sentencing.

The High Court considered the totality of the appellant’s criminal conduct, his extensive history of offending, and the circumstances of each offence. The court acknowledged the appellant's recent efforts towards rehabilitation but recognised that his prospects for successful rehabilitation remained guarded. The court imposed a sentence that included a short non-parole period, reflecting the need for deterrence and protection of the community, while also providing an opportunity for the appellant to engage in rehabilitation efforts.

The court ordered that the appellant’s conviction and sentence be upheld as determined by the lower court, with the specifics of the sentence being as outlined in the judgment. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50]

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.