R v UD (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 323

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v UD (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 323
Hearing Date:	30 November 2020
DecisionDate:	3 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [56]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – multiple offences – joint commission aggravated robbery – possess prohibited weapon – common assault
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 133G(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45A, 310 Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5
Cases Cited:	R v Heikkinen [2006] NSWCCA 50 R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Percival [2018] ACTSC 230 R v SDM [2001] NSWCCA 158; 51 NSWLR 530 Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) UD (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 280 of 2019 SCC 140 of 2018; SCC 352 of 2019 SCC 277 of 2019; SCC 279 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On various dates in 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to the following eight offences:

(a)Four counts of joint commission aggravated robbery (CH957/2018; CH961/2018, CH962/2018 and CC2764/2018), 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 attempted aggravated robbery (CH958/2018), contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.
(c)One count of possess prohibited weapon (CC2765/2018), contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both.

The offender also entered pleas of guilty to the following charges which were transferred from the Magistrates Court:

(a)Two counts of common assault (CC2766/2018 and CC2768/2018), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years.

The offender was born in 1992. Some of the offences were committed before the offender turned 18. This is why the offender’s name has been anonymised in these reasons.

Exhibit A includes a detailed statement of the facts of each offence. The following is a chronological summary:

(a)On 1 November 2009 the offender and another man gained entry to a McDonald’s restaurant in Fyshwick by forcing the manager, who had just closed the restaurant, to let the men into the premises under threat of the use of a curved and serrated knife. The manager was forced to open the safe from which $7,556.15 was removed. The robbers then departed. The offender pleaded guilty to this robbery on 14 February 2020.
(b)On 13 November 2009 a robbery of the KFC restaurant in Greenway was thwarted after an employee, although threatened…

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 UD (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v UD (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 323
Case: [2020] ACTSC 323
Decision Date: 3 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, UD, who was charged with multiple offences including joint commission of aggravated robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon, and common assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, UD, contested the charges, leading to a trial where evidence was presented and arguments were made on both sides.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether UD was guilty of the offences as charged, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be given the multiplicity of offences. The court had to consider the nature and seriousness of the crimes, the role of the defendant in the offences, and the principles of sentencing in relation to multiple offences. The court also had to determine if there were any aggravating or mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

The court found UD guilty on all charges. In delivering the judgment and determining the sentence, the court took into account the gravity of the crimes, the defendant's role in the aggravated robbery, and the fact that a prohibited weapon was involved. The court also considered the cumulative effect of the multiple offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. After weighing these factors, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The precise details of the sentence are provided in the final orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [56]

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.