R v UB - [2019] ACTSC 134

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v UB
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 134
Hearing Dates:	30 January 2019 and 23 May 2019
DecisionDate:	23 May 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [19]–[21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – make a demand with threat – aggravated robbery – actual use of force against victim – sentencing of four co-offenders – intimidatory effect of co‑offenders in a group – offender a young person at the time of the offence – sentences fully suspended – imposition of good behaviour order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 32(2)(a), 114C Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), ss 133C, 133D, Pt 8A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68F
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 R v O’Connor [2019] ACTSC 132
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) UB (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Purnell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 111 of 2018 SCC 135 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, who I will refer to as UB, has pleaded guilty to the following charges:

a) one count of make demand with threat contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty being imprisonment for 10 years; and

b) one count of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by joint commission, the maximum penalty being 2500 penalty units or imprisonment for 25 years or both.

The sentencing of the offender UB occurred at the same time as the sentencing of his co-offenders, Caleb Bobbine, Matthew O’Connor and Blake Westbrook.

Facts

I have set out the facts relating to the offence of making a demand with threats and the aggravated robbery charge in my reasons in R v O’Connor [2019] ACTSC 132. Those offences are Count 1 and Count 2 referred to in those reasons. I adopt the facts set out there in relation to UB.

Count 1
3.Between 19 October and 6 November 2017, the first victim who I will refer to as KE, was with some friends outside the Westfield Belconnen shopping mall near one of the exits. KE was 17 years old at the time and was sitting on his BMX bike. KE was approached by Mr O’Connor who told KE to give him $50 because KE had been “talking shit”. Mr O’Connor told KE that if he did not give him the money he would “bash” KE and take his bike.
4.Mr O’Connor then used his phone to call UB, a young person who was at that time 16 years old, and told him to come to the location. UB turned up and took hold of the handlebars of KE’s bike preventing him from leaving. UB and Mr O’Connor continued to demand money from KE and threatened to bash him. UB told KE that he could fight…

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 UB

Details

AGLC: R v UB [2019] ACTSC 134
Case: [2019] ACTSC 134
Decision Date: 23 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v UB involved the sentencing of four co-offenders who were convicted of aggravated robbery, where actual force was used against the victim. The appellant, UB, was one of the offenders and was a young person at the time of the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant sought to appeal the sentences imposed on them. The central issue was whether the sentences, which were fully suspended and included the imposition of good behaviour orders, were appropriate given the severity of the crime and the appellant's age at the time.

The court examined the nature of the offence, which involved UB making a demand with a threat and the actual use of force against the victim. It considered the role UB played in the crime, the intimidatory effect of the group, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also took into account the appellant's age at the time of the offence, which is a mitigating factor. Despite the severity of the crime, the court found that the sentences, which included fully suspended sentences and good behaviour orders, were appropriate given the circumstances. The court held that these measures were sufficient to achieve the goals of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation without unduly harsh consequences for UB, particularly considering their young age at the time of the offence.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the sentences, confirming that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in sentencing. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were balanced and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the crime, the role of UB, and the need to consider the appellant's youth. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were affirmed. The court emphasized the importance of considering both punitive and rehabilitative aspects in sentencing, particularly for young offenders. The final orders confirmed the imposition of fully suspended sentences and good behaviour orders as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]–[21]

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.