R v Vaughan - [2017] ACTSC 270

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Vaughan
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 270
Hearing Date:	29 August 2017
DecisionDate:	30 August 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery – co-offender – replica shotgun – co‑offender expressed willingness to give evidence at trial – plea of guilty – significant criminal history – drug addiction – proposition that counsel acting for an accused person cannot take instructions and provide advice without having seen the Crown brief rejected – degree of remorse – reduction for plea of guilty – prospects for rehabilitation guarded – capable of rehabilitation if address drug abuse and make necessary changes – culpability somewhat higher than co-offender – general and specific deterrence – serious offence – term of imprisonment imposed
Legislation:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dean Vaughan (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez with Ms T Skvortsova (Crown) Mr J Masters (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 216 of 2016

BURNS J:

Dean Vaughan, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of aggravated robbery which occurred on 30 June 2016. The maximum penalty for this offence, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $375,000, or both.

On the morning of 30 June 2016, your co‑offender, Dwayne Goward, drove a Ford Falcon from Queanbeyan, New South Wales (NSW) to Tennant Street, Fyshwick in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). This was observed by police conducting surveillance duties. At the same time you drove a motorcycle from Queanbeyan to the same area in Tennant Street, Fyshwick. You took possession of a replica modified shotgun from the Ford Falcon. Your co‑offender then drove the motorcycle with you as a pillion passenger to a driveway on Townsville Street in Fyshwick. You dismounted the motorcycle and walked towards the Fyshwick Post Office on Townsville Street. Meanwhile, your co‑offender turned the motorcycle around so that it was facing towards Townsville Street. These actions were also observed by police conducting surveillance duties.

At about 9.25 am you entered the post office wearing a black hooded jumper with the hood pulled over your head, a dark-coloured balaclava, black tracksuit pants and black shoes. You were in possession of the replica shotgun and a beige fabric bag. You approached the counter and threw the bag towards an employee of Australia Post. However, the bag fell onto the ground. You picked the bag up from the floor and placed it on the counter. You then told an employee to fill the bag up. Money was taken from three cash registers.

It appears that at least two employees and one customer were present in the office whilst this robbery took place. You stole a total of $1,120. Once the money had been placed into the bag you left the store, placing the modified replica shotgun…

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 Vaughan

Details

AGLC: R v Vaughan [2017] ACTSC 270
Case: [2017] ACTSC 270
Decision Date: 30 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vaughan involved an appeal by the respondent against a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge. The respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, where he and a co-offender committed the offence armed with a replica shotgun. The co-offender expressed a willingness to give evidence at the trial. The legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the sentence and whether the trial judge erred in the way he assessed the factors relevant to the sentence.

The court examined whether the trial judge properly considered the factors relevant to the sentence, including the significant criminal history of the respondent, his drug addiction, the degree of remorse shown, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The court rejected the proposition that counsel cannot take instructions and provide advice without having seen the Crown brief. The court found that the trial judge did not err in his assessment of the relevant factors, and the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the respondent's higher culpability compared to the co-offender.

The court upheld the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial judge for resentencing. The trial judge was directed to consider the appropriate term of imprisonment, taking into account the factors relevant to the sentence, including the respondent's significant criminal history, drug addiction, degree of remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that the respondent was capable of rehabilitation if he addressed his drug abuse and made the necessary changes.

The orders of the court included the appeal being upheld, the matter being remitted to the trial judge for resentencing, and the trial judge being directed to consider the appropriate term of imprisonment, taking into account the relevant factors. The court did not specify the term of imprisonment to be imposed, leaving that decision to the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]

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.