R v Wells - [2018] ACTSC 121

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wells
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 121
Hearing Dates:	8 February, 16 March 2018
DecisionDate:	4 April 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [32]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – arson – act endangering life – common element in both offences – offender not to be doubly punished for that act – offender diagnosed with terminal illness – whether Court should sentence in light of terminal prognosis – public interest in finalising proceedings – medical condition taken into account in determining appropriate sentence – sentence must not be manifestly inadequate – offender served time in custody for offence prior to sentencing – sentence of imprisonment suspended upon entering good behaviour order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 27(3) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 404(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 85, 86 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 33(1)(m), 33(1)(r), 102, 105
Cases Cited:	Cardona v The Queen [2011] VSCA 58 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 Pfeiffer v R [2009] NSWCCA 145 R v Cumberbatch [2004] VSCA 37; 8 VR 9
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Wells (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 122 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Michael Wells has pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of an act endangering life. The maximum penalty for the offence of arson contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code2002 (ACT) is 15 years imprisonment and a fine of $225,000. The maximum penalty for the offence of an act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is 10 years imprisonment.

Facts

The offender and his partner were in a long-term relationship but lived separately. Each suffered from schizophrenia. On 6 February 2017, the offender was upset with his partner who he blamed for letting down the tyres of his car. He had contacted police about the slashing of his tyres and they had attended. They were unable to make contact with his partner.

Later that morning, the offender told a friend of his, who was watching television in the offenders unit, that he was going to set fire to his partner’s house. He walked to a nearby service station where he filled up a 5L jerrycan with petrol. This was captured on closed circuit television (CCTV). He walked back to her house and poured the petrol over the corner of the kitchen and lounge room and set it alight. His partner was asleep in a bedroom at the time. Notwithstanding that the house had filled with black smoke, she managed to escape from the burning house. She made two attempts to re-enter the house in order to save her dog. Her dog eventually turned up unharmed.

The Fire Brigade attended and took an hour and a…

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 Wells

Details

AGLC: R v Wells [2018] ACTSC 121
Case: [2018] ACTSC 121
Decision Date: 4 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wells involved the respondent, who was convicted of arson and endangering life in relation to an incident in which a house was set on fire, endangering the lives of the occupants. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the offender should be doubly punished for the same act and how the offender's terminal illness should be factored into the sentencing process. The court also had to consider the public interest in finalising the proceedings and ensure the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

The court examined the principles of double jeopardy and the sentencing considerations surrounding the offender's medical condition. It noted that the common element in both offences was the act of endangering life, and the offender should not be punished twice for that act. The court also took into account the offender's terminal illness in determining the appropriate sentence, balancing this with the public interest in finalising the proceedings and ensuring the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Given the offender had already served time in custody for the offence prior to sentencing, the court decided to suspend the sentence of imprisonment upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order.

The court's reasoning and approach to sentencing were guided by the need to avoid double punishment, consider the offender's medical condition, and ensure the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court found that the sentence of imprisonment should be suspended upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order, reflecting the unique facts and circumstances of the case. The final orders were made in accordance with the considerations outlined above.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [32]

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.