R v UD

Case [2017] ACTSC 210


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v UD

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 210

Hearing Date:

7 August 2017

DecisionDate:

7 August 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [29]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young person – aggravated robbery – attempted aggravated robbery –ride in a motor vehicle without consent – pleas of guilty.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310 and 318(2)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

UD (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Thomas (Crown)

Mr T Pasi (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Prudential Legal Solutions (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 132 of 2017 and SCC 156 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

  1. On 26 June 2017, UD, a young person, pleaded guilty to two charges in the ACT Childrens Court.

  1. The two offences to which he pleaded guilty were aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and dishonestly drive a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318 (2) of the Code.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated robbery is a fine of $375,000 and/or 25 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle without consent is a fine of $75,000 and/or five years imprisonment. 

  1. On 29 May 2017, UD and a co-offender, SI, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted aggravated robbery. SI has also appeared for sentence today.

  1. UD was born in 2000. He was 16 years of age when the offences were committed.

  1. UD was a client of an organisation called Premier Youthworks. The organisation’s purpose is to help young people. It has a residential section. UD was a resident.

  1. On 16 February 2017, an argument broke out between a residential youth worker at Premier Youthworks, UD and his younger sister, FD. At about midday, the youth worker was in the office with UD and his sister.

  1. FD picked up a petty cash tin which contained the keys to the Premier Youthworks vehicle and a petrol card. It also contained an EFTPOS card and about $20 in cash. UD deliberately blocked the youth worker’s view of FD, allowing FD to run from the room with the tin.

  1. The youth worker confronted FD, who responded with threats of bashing and stabbing her if she called the police. UD intervened and said “I have a fucking meat cleaver”, which he revealed to the youth worker. He threatened to stab her if she called the police.

  1. The youth worker returned to the office and locked herself in. She called the police. At the same time, the Premier Youthworks vehicle was driven away. FD was the driver and UD was the passenger.

  1. I note that another young person was also involved in the incident. More detailed facts can be found in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit C).

  1. The attempted aggravated robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $375,000 and/or 25 years imprisonment, was committed on 14 May…

Continue reading R v UD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v UD [2017] ACTSC 210
Case
[2017] ACTSC 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, UD, was charged with multiple offences including aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, and ride in a motor vehicle without consent. The respondent pleaded guilty to all charges before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who was a young person at the time of the offences. The primary legal issue was the application of sentencing principles to young offenders, particularly the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which emphasise rehabilitation and deterrence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act, including the paramount consideration of the best interests of the young person. The court also took into account the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's age, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court noted the respondent's guilty pleas, the absence of previous convictions, and the circumstances surrounding the offences. After weighing these factors, the court determined that the respondent should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the need for rehabilitation and the potential for the respondent to be reformed.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with details of the sentence to be determined by the court at a later date. The court also directed that a pre-sentence report be prepared to assist in determining the appropriate length and conditions of the sentence. The final orders were to be made after consideration of the pre-sentence report and any submissions from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [29]

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.