R v Vincent (No 3) - [2018] ACTSC 347

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Vincent (No 3)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 113
Hearing Date:	4 June 2021
Decision Date:	4 June 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [18]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – receive stolen property – possess stolen property – breach of Good Behaviour Order – significant criminal record – offender to
participate in rehabilitation program
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 313, 324, 376
Cases Cited:	R v Vincent [2018] ACTSC 347
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher Lee Vincent (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
M Howe (Crown) J Purnell SC (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
JDR Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 100 of 2018; SCC 103 of 2018 SCC 122 of 2020; SCC 121 of 2020
ELKAIM J:

1.       On 8 April 2021, in response to an indictment dated 6 April 2021, the offender pleaded guilty to a single charge of dishonestly receiving stolen property (CC4380/2020),
contrary to s 313 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’
imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
2. The offender also pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawful possession of stolen property (CAN4381/2020), contrary to s 324 of the Criminal Code, which was
transferred from the Magistrates Court. The maximum penalty is 6 months’
imprisonment, a fine of $8,000 or both.
3.       The pleas of guilty were entered after a Criminal Case Conference. A trial was due to start in the week commencing on 12 April 2021. As a result the offender is entitled to a discount of 15% which will be factored into his final sentence.
4.       On 12 September 2018, prior to the commission of the above offences, I sentenced the offender for the following offences:

(a) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC1430/2018);
(b) Two counts of damaging property (CC4970/2018 and CC4971/2018).
5.       The practical result was that the offender was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment
which was suspended on the condition that he become subject to a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months (R v Vincent [2018] ACTSC 347). I refer to that judgment in respect of his subjective circumstances.
6.       The commission of the current offences places the offender in breach of the Good Behaviour Order.
7.       The offender is before me today for re-sentencing in respect of the breach, and for sentencing in respect of the two new offences.
8.       There is a detailed Statement of Facts in Exhibit A. In summary, in early 2020 there was a series of burglaries of Canberra residences.

On 27 March 2020 the police attended the offender’s home in Kambah to execute a
search warrant. They discovered many items that had been stolen during the burglaries. They also found property, obviously stolen, but belonging to unknown persons. This property is the subject of the unlawful possession of stolen property charge.

10. The property with an identifiable owner totalled just under $35,000…

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 Vincent (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Vincent (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 347
Case: [2018] ACTSC 347
Decision Date: 4 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vincent (No 3) involved the appellant, Vincent, who was convicted of receiving stolen property and possessing stolen property, as well as breaching a Good Behaviour Order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution argued that Vincent had a significant criminal record and had violated his Good Behaviour Order by engaging in criminal activities. Vincent contested the severity of the sentence imposed on him, asserting that it was excessive given the nature and circumstances of his offences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive and whether the court had adequately considered the mitigating factors in Vincent's case. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence should be reduced due to Vincent's acceptance of responsibility, his remorse, and his efforts to rehabilitate himself. The Crown, however, maintained that the sentence was appropriate given Vincent's extensive criminal history and the need to deter similar future conduct.

The court examined the principles governing sentencing and the circumstances of the case. It noted that Vincent had a lengthy criminal record and had previously breached a Good Behaviour Order. The court also acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by Vincent's counsel, such as his remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation. However, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed. The court further determined that the primary judge had adequately considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss Vincent's appeal against sentence. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the primary judge, finding it to be neither manifestly excessive nor an abuse of discretion. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the offender's criminal history and the need to balance the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [18]

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.

(a)	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC1430/2018);
(b)	Two counts of damaging property (CC4970/2018 and CC4971/2018).