R v Watson - [2020] ACTSC 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Watson
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 30
Hearing Date:	12 December 2019
DecisionDate:	28 January 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [59]–[69]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – using a false document – obtaining property by deception – pleas of guilty – general deterrence – significant anxiety and stress to the victims – serious example of this type of offending – reasonable prospects for rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Building Act 2004 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 326, 347 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Andrew Gregory Watson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Khazma (Crown) J Masters (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Marjason & Marjason (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 161 of 2018

BURNS J:

Andrew Watson, on 26 September 2019 you entered pleas of guilty to four counts of using a false document contrary to s 347 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

(the Criminal Code) and four counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to

s 326 of the Criminal Code.

Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, a fine not exceeding $140,000, or both. Your pleas were entered on the second day of your trial. This was, in effect, the second occasion that you were brought to trial for these offences.

You first appeared with regard to this matter in the ACT Magistrates Court on

14 February 2018. You entered pleas of not guilty and you were committed for trial to this Court on 25 June 2018. On 20 August 2018, the Crown filed an indictment containing eight counts. Pre-trial applications were then heard.

On 1 April 2019 the first trial commenced. A jury was empanelled and preliminary issues were addressed in the absence of the jury. On 2 April 2019, the second day of the trial, I raised the issue of latent duplicity in the Indictment. Subsequently, the jury was discharged and the trial was adjourned to allow time for the Crown to consider its position on that issue. On 17 April 2019, a new indictment was filed containing

76 counts. A subsequent application by you to stay the proceeding was dismissed.

On 25 September 2019, the second trial commenced and a jury was empanelled. In the course of your Counsel's opening address to the jury, he revealed that the central plank of your case was that the Crown had to prove that you were not acting on behalf of your company, ANDC Pty Ltd, at the time that you did those things which the Crown alleged constituted the offences.

After I indicated that I would direct the jury to focus on what they were satisfied that you had done and what your state of mind was at the time that you did it, the trial was adjourned until the following day. On 26 September 2019, the Crown presented a new indictment containing eight counts. You were arraigned and entered…

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 [2020] ACTSC 30
Case: [2020] ACTSC 30
Decision Date: 28 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a case where the respondent, Watson, had pleaded guilty to charges of using a false document and obtaining property by deception. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the respondent's actions had caused significant anxiety and stress to the victims, highlighting the seriousness of the offence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the respondent's crimes and the consideration of the relevant factors in sentencing, including the need for general deterrence and the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to balance these factors while also taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the impact of the offences on the victims.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the respondent's background and prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that the offences constituted a serious example of this type of offending, necessitating a sentence that would serve as a general deterrent to others. However, the court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that reflected the gravity of the offences while also providing the respondent with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length and conditions of the sentence outlined in the final orders section of the judgment. The court also ordered that the respondent pay restitution to the victims and participate in a rehabilitation program as part of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [59]–[69]

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.