R v TX

Case [2020] ACTSC 157 17 June 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v TX
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 157
Hearing Date(s):	11 February 2020
DecisionDate:	17 June 2020
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [110]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – possess prohibited firearm – plea of guilty – disadvantaged background – guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 310 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33, 35, 57 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11
Cases Cited:	Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 248 Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 Hall v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Monfires v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Collier [2019] ACTSC 358 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77 R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 R v Nicholas [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Salcedo (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 R v Thompson [2017] ACTSC 141 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCA 109 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127 Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) TX (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 264 of 2019 and SCC 265 of 2019

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

On 9 October 2019, TX pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)An offence of attempted aggravated robbery contrary to s…

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 TX

Details

AGLC: R v TX [2020] ACTSC 157
Case: [2020] ACTSC 157
Decision Date: 17 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus TX, the accused was brought before the Court to face charges related to aggravated robbery, possession of a prohibited firearm, and other associated offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had jurisdiction to hear the matter given the severity of the alleged crimes. TX pleaded guilty to all charges, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence in light of the plea and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the appropriate weight to give to the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the use of a firearm, and the need to consider the mitigating factors, such as the accused's disadvantaged background and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to ensure that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the severity of the crime and served the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence. Given the plea of guilty, the court was mindful that it should not impose a sentence that was excessively lenient, but neither should it be excessively harsh.

The court ultimately determined that the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the use of a firearm and the vulnerable nature of the victim, outweighed the mitigating factors. However, the court did take into account TX's disadvantaged background and prospects for rehabilitation in arriving at an appropriate sentence. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with a non-parole period that reflected the seriousness of the offence, but also left room for the possibility of rehabilitation and eventual release. The precise details of the sentence, including the length of the non-parole period, are set out in the court's written reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [110]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v TX [2020] ACTSC 157

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v CR (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 293

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v DB (a Pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 294
Citation 1

…] ACTSC 217 R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v TX [2020] ACTSC 157 R v White [2023] ACTCA 35 R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 Saipaini v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 5; 288 A Crim R 191 Sampson v De H…
Director of Public Prosecutions v CR (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 293
Citation 2

…ACTSC 288; R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15; R v Hawkins [2020] ACTSC 29; Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 53; R v Lutze [2020] ACTSC 121; R v TX [2020] ACTSC 157; R v Evans ; R v Reid [2020] ACTSC 169; R v Lau [2020] ACTSC 120; R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 ( Sidaros ); R v King [2022] ACTSC 183.…
Michael Noble v Milan Kajevic [2020] ACTMC 29
Citation 3

…Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288 R v Inder [2020] ACTSC 111 R v Stephen [2020] ACTSC 283 R v TX [2020] ACTSC 157 R v Stacker [2019] ACTSC 219 R v Peter [2019] ACTSC 22 R v Mitchell [2016] ACTSC 85 R v Mack [2009] NSWCCA 216…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…owledged that while the risk of infection remains and related restrictions are in place, the consequences for prisoners are significant: DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 at [75]. Absence of visits from family and friends is an additional hardship that must be synthesised along with other matters: R v Despotovski [2020…
Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…around Australia have made a number of statements concerning COVID-19 and sentencing. Suspension of visits make incarceration more onerous: Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 at [166]. Prison systems remain free; community infection rates are trending downwards. However, it is acknowledged that while the risk of infection…
R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…C 245 at [75]. Absence of visits from family and friends is an additional hardship that must be synthesised along with other matters: R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 and Brown at [48].…
R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…ustody due to COVID-19, counsel for the offender highlighted the cases of Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 ( Brown ) and R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 ( Stott ). In Brown , Priest and Weinberg JJA state at [48]:…
Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…n relation to the more onerous conditions of custody due to COVID-19, counsel for the offender highlighted the cases of Brown (aka Davis) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 ( Brown ) and R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 ( Stott ). In Brown , Priest and Weinberg JJA state at [48]:…
R v Collier [2019] ACTSC 358
Citation 6

…v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Collier [2019] ACTSC 358 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46…
R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36
Citation 7

…259 CLR 256 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77 R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 R v Nicholas [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Salcedo (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 R v Thompson [2017] ACTSC 141 R v Toumo’ua [20…
Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…35 discounts that is similar to NSW at [47]. However, the ACT statutory scheme does differ from that of NSW: see Toumo’ua and Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34.…
R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77
Citation 9

…SWLR 346 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77 R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 R v Nicholas [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Salcedo (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Stott (No 2) [2…
R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305
Citation 10

…TCA 48 R v Muell [2019] ACTSC 77 R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 R v Nicholas [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Salcedo (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Stott (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 62 R v Thompson [2017] ACTSC 141 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCA 109 Scott v R [2020] NSW…
DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 41
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…offences. Additionally, it should be noted that, as the High Court stated in Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [4] that:…
R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315
Citation 12

…O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Collier [2019] ACTSC 358 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 2…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41
Citation 13

…LR 571 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 248 Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 DPP v Kotiau [2020] VSC 245 Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 Hall v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 Hili v The…
R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…dered a report by Dr Richard Furst, a forensic psychiatrist, dated 5 December 2019. The report included the following and made reference to R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392, in which the offender was a victim:…
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…ight of the evidence: Butters at [18], Mun at [37] and Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127 at [6], [110]. These cases can be contrasted with Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 and R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380, where the sentencing judge in each case was not in error in rejecting the offender’s self-servin…
Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…not go into the witness box and give evidence. It is, however, relevant to the weight of the evidence: Butters at [18], Mun at [37] and Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127 at [6], [110]. These cases can be contrasted with Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 and R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380, where the sent…
Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…The prosecution submitted that, although Henry is not binding, the ACT Court of Appeal has described it as persuasive authority: Hall v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 at [49]. In Henry , the Court considered that an offence in the above category should generally attract a sentence of four to five years.…
R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…a sentencing judge to confine themselves to identifying features of the case that inform the objective seriousness of that case” ( R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 ( Toumo’ua ) at [24]). The relevant identifying features are set out in the broadly agreed submissions of the prosecution and defence referre…
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…I find the offences to be at a higher level of objective seriousness: see R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 at [19]. Nevertheless, it must be stated that references to low, mid and high range are unlikely to be helpful in this jurisdiction. As has previously been expressed, “it is preferable for a sentencing…
Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Citation 20 (Para 1)

…fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider questions of accumulation and concurrence, as well as totality: Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53 at [64] ( Zdravkovic ). The real question is whether the total sentence is “just and appropriate” to reflect the total criminality: Mill v The Queen…
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…Bare sentencing statistics provide limited assistance: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550. Statistics do not provide information about why sentences were fixed as they were in each case: Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 ( Hili ). There are a number of decisions of this court relating to offenders who…
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…ers ) at [18], Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [8] per Burns and Lander JJ, Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 at [44], Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 ( Mun ) at [36] and R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 at [38]. Courts do not simply disregard evidence of remorse if the offender does not go into the w…
O'Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…In that regard, I refer to the following passage from O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26], citing Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27]:…
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46
Citation 24 (Para 1)

…Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 noted that the ACT courts have adopted an approach to s 35 discounts that is similar to NSW at [47]. However, the ACT statutory scheme does differ from that of NSW: see Toumo’ua and Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34.…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 25 (Para 1)

…passage of time and repeat offending” but does not have the same “(mitigatory) relevance for all purposes of punishment”: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44].…
Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Citation 26 (Para 1)

…fender giving sworn evidence should be treated with considerable caution: see Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 ( Butters ) at [18], Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [8] per Burns and Lander JJ, Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 at [44], Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 ( Mun ) at [36] and R v Mumberson […
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48
Citation 27 (Para 1)

…uestion is whether the total sentence is “just and appropriate” to reflect the total criminality: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 at [66] and Zdravkovic at [71].…
R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54
Citation 28 (Para 1)

…9 at [8] per Burns and Lander JJ, Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 at [44], Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 ( Mun ) at [36] and R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 at [38]. Courts do not simply disregard evidence of remorse if the offender does not go into the witness box and give evidence. It is, however, relev…
Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
Citation 29 (Para 1)

…able caution: see Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 ( Butters ) at [18], Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [8] per Burns and Lander JJ, Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 at [44], Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234 ( Mun ) at [36] and R v Mumberson [2011] NSWCCA 54 at [38]. Courts do not simply disregard evide…
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Citation 30 (Para 1)

…R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550. Statistics do not provide information about why sentences were fixed as they were in each case: Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 ( Hili ). There are a number of decisions of this court relating to offenders who committed similar offences. Additionally, it should be…
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Citation 31 (Para 1)

…ements made by an offender which are not supported by the offender giving sworn evidence should be treated with considerable caution: see Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 ( Butters ) at [18], Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 at [8] per Burns and Lander JJ, Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; 209 A Crim R 297 at [44], M…
R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291
Citation 32 (Para 1)

…is a relevant circumstance for the Court to consider but is not, of itself, a mitigating factor: Henry at [193]-[203], [273], [347] and R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 at [19]-[30].…
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Citation 33 (Para 1)

…In that regard, I refer to the following passage from O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26], citing Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27]:…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 34 (Para 1)

…As with every sentencing exercise, careful attention must be paid to the maximum penalty, which provides a yardstick: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357.…
R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
Citation 35 (Para 1)

…8], Mun at [37] and Van Zwam v R [2017] NSWCCA 127 at [6], [110]. These cases can be contrasted with Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 and R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380, where the sentencing judge in each case was not in error in rejecting the offender’s self-serving untested statements as evidence…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 36

…r [2019] ACTSC 358 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Muel…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 37

…R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Greentree (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 315 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79; 121 A Crim R 380 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jacky [2017] ACTSC 392 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 R v Muell [2019] ACTSC…
New Broken Hill Consolidated Ltd v Michael Gillespie [1999] NSWCA 109
Citation 38 (Para 1)

…In R v Tran [1999] NSWCA 109 at [15], Wood CJ stated:…
Douglas v The Queen [1995] FCA 411
Citation 39 (Para 1)

…In relation to the offender’s addiction, counsel for the offender referred to the case of Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 at 470, where von Doussa, Higgins and Nicholson JJ stated:…
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Citation 40 (Para 1)

…[64] ( Zdravkovic ). The real question is whether the total sentence is “just and appropriate” to reflect the total criminality: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48 at [66] and Zdravkovic at [71].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 10, 33, 35, 57, 6, 7
7 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) 22
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS) 42
2 mentions
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) 11
2 mentions (from Para 1)