Legal Research
Cases
R v Watson

R v Watson

Case [2022] ACTSC 95 3 May 2022

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Joint Commission

Sentencing

Specific Performance

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Watson
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 95
Hearing Date:	28 January, 18 February, 2 May 2022
Decision Date:	3 May 2022
Before:	McWilliam AJ
Decision:	See [63]-[64]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary – make demand with threat to kill – joint commission – where offender has drug and alcohol addiction – where no prior criminal history – where prospects of rehabilitation high – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order made
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 12A, 33, 35, 80W, 80Y, 80Z, 90 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45, 45A, 312 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 32 Public Health Act 1997 (ACT) s 120
Cases Cited:	GAS v R [2004] HCA 22; 78 ALJR 786 Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Johns v R (1980) 143 CLR 108 McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 130 ALR 26 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] ACTSC 35 R v BS-X [2021] ACTSC 160 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Goodge [2019] ACTSC 297 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288 R v McMahon (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 299 R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155
R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 151
R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178 R v Shearer [2018] ACTSC 91
Simonds v the Queen [2013] ACTCA 13
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Keona Rosalie Watson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
C Muthurajah (Crown) K Prasad (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Gateway Legal Service (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 261 of 2021
MCWILLIAM AJ:

1. Ms Keona Watson (the offender) is before the Court for sentence, having pleaded guilty on 2 November 2021 to the following offences:

(a)

CC2021/9438: make a demand of another person with a threat to kill that other person, contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (joint
commission). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

(b) CC2021/8839: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312(a) of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45 of the Criminal Code (knowingly concerned in the commission of an
offence). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $320,000, 20 years’
imprisonment, or both.

2. The offender was arrested in relation to the charges but has subsequently been granted bail on two occasions, the details of which I consider to be immaterial to the present sentencing task. What is relevant is that the…

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 Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Watson [2022] ACTSC 95
Case: [2022] ACTSC 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard a case against Keona Rosalie Watson, who pleaded guilty to charges of making a demand with a threat to kill and aggravated burglary. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the objective and subjective factors relevant to the offending. The court considered the nature of the offending, the joint nature of the commission, the impact on the victims, and the offender's personal circumstances, including her history of substance abuse and commitment to rehabilitation.

Acting Justice McWilliam concluded that the objective seriousness of the offending was high due to the joint nature of the commission and the significant threat posed to the victims. However, the offender's degree of culpability was less than that of her co-offenders. The subjective factors, such as the offender's young age, lack of criminal history, and commitment to rehabilitation, were also taken into account.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment (reduced from 2 years and 4 months due to the offender's guilty plea) for the offence of making a demand with a threat to kill, and 18 months' imprisonment (reduced from 24 months due to the guilty plea) for the offence of aggravated burglary. The sentences were partially concurrent and partially consecutive, resulting in a total sentence of 1 year, 10 months, and 13 days. Additionally, a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was imposed for 18 months, with the custodial part of the order suspended until the offender's release from custody.

In summary, the court considered the objective and subjective factors relevant to the offending and imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court also imposed a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order to address the offender's substance abuse issues and support her rehabilitation efforts.

Orders