R v Walto - [2022] ACTSC 187

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Walto
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 187
Hearing Date:	21 July 2022
DecisionDate:	25 July 2022
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [88]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – rescuing by force a person who was in lawful custody – intentionally causing damage to property – dangerous driving – taking a motor vehicle without consent – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – assaulting a frontline officer – driving while suspended – significant criminal history – gravity of conduct requires custodial sentence – non-parole period below usual range due to reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and welfare of children
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT), s 116ZQ Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 11, 12A(3) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26A, 161(a) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 318(1), 403(1) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32(2)(a) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 63 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 7(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Newman; R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 102 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Wright (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 46
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Lila Rose Mary Walto ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Smith ( Crown) F Purnell SC ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Aulich Criminal Law ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 111 of 2022 SCC 112 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 4 May 2022, the offender, Lila Rose Mary Walto, pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)One count of rescuing by force a person who was in lawful custody, contrary to s 161(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2021/7292). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years.
(b)One count of intentionally causing damage to property belonging to someone else, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2021/7152). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years or 1000 penalty units, or both.
(c)Two counts of dangerous driving, contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2021/7148 and CC2021/7288). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for one year or 100 penalty units, or both.
(d)One count of taking a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2021/7150). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for five years or 500 penalty units, or both.
(e)One count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2021/7879). The penalty for this offence is imprisonment for five years.
(f)Two counts of assaulting a frontline officer, contrary to s 26A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2021/7145 and CC2021/7146). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for two years.
(g)One count of driving while suspended, contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CC2021/7149). The maximum penalty…

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 Walto

Details

AGLC: R v Walto [2022] ACTSC 187
Case: [2022] ACTSC 187
Decision Date: 25 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walto involved the respondent, Walto, and the Crown. The dispute was concerned with the sentencing of Walto following a series of serious criminal offenses. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. Walto was convicted of multiple offenses including intentionally causing damage to property, dangerous driving, taking a motor vehicle without consent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assaulting a frontline officer, and driving while suspended. These offenses were compounded by Walto's significant criminal history.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Walto, considering the gravity of his conduct and the need for general and specific deterrence. The key legal issues were the cumulative impact of Walto's offenses, the necessity of a custodial sentence, and the determination of a non-parole period that balanced the requirements of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the aggravating factors of Walto's conduct against the potential for rehabilitation and the welfare of his children.

The court found that the gravity of Walto's conduct warranted a custodial sentence. It noted that the offenses were not only numerous but also involved significant violence and disregard for the law. Despite this, the court determined that a non-parole period below the usual range was appropriate due to Walto's reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and the welfare of his children. The court emphasised the importance of considering the broader impact of incarceration on Walto's family and the potential for positive change through rehabilitation programs.

The court ultimately ordered that Walto be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that reflected the mitigating factors while still serving the purposes of punishment and deterrence. The precise details of the sentence, including the total term and the non-parole period, are set out in the judgment at paragraph [88].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [88]

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.