R v White - [2022] ACTSC 122

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v White
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 122
Hearing Date:	25 May 2022
DecisionDate:	26 May 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	1. The Court imposes the following sentences: (a) Robbery (5 December 2021): the sentence is 13 months and 14 days’ imprisonment (reduced from 18 months) to commence on 7 March 2022 and end on 20 April 2023. (b) Aggravated robbery (6 December 2021): the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 24 months) to commence on 7 September 2022 and end on 6 March 2024. (c) Aggravated robbery (6 December 2021): the sentence is 16 months and 14 days’ imprisonment (reduced from 22 months) to commence on 7 November 2022 and end on 20 March 2024. (d) Common assault (6 December 2021): the sentence is four months and 14 days’ imprisonment (reduced from six months) to commence on 7 August 2022 and end on 20 December 2022. (e) Robbery (6 December 2021): the sentence is 15 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 20 months) to commence on 7 December 2022 and end on 6 March 2024. (f) Aggravated robbery (6 December 2021): the sentence is 16 months and 14 days’ imprisonment (reduced from 22 months) to commence on 7 March 2023 and end on 20 July 2024. (g) Robbery (6 December 2021): the sentence is 12 months and 7 days’ imprisonment (reduced from 15 months) to commence on 7 May 2023 and end on 13 May 2024. (h) Attempt theft (7 December 2021): the sentence is one month’s imprisonment to commence on 7 April 2023 and end on 6 May 2023. (i) Aggravated burglary (7 December 2021): the sentence is 17 months and 7 days’ imprisonment (reduced from 22 months) to commence on 7 July 2023 and end on 13 December 2024. (j) Minor theft (7 December 2021): the sentence is one month’s imprisonment to commence on 7 March 2023 and end on 6 April 2023. (k) Possess prohibited substance (7 December 2021): sentence is one month’s imprisonment to commence on 7 March 2023 and end on 6 April 2023. 2. The total effective sentence is 2 years, 9 months and 7 days’ imprisonment. 3. The nonparole period is 1 year, 7 months and 29 days to commence on 7 March 2022 and end on 4 November 2023.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – robbery – common assault – attempted theft – minor theft – possession of prohibited substance
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Kodie White ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren ( Crown) E Chen ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 69 of 2022 SCC 70 of 2022

Elkaim J:

Kodie White has pleaded guilty to a number of offences. His pleas were entered over two separate days.

On 9 March and 18 March 2022 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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2022] ACTSC 122
Case: [2022] ACTSC 122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White was heard before Elkaim J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Kodie White, the offender, pleaded guilty to a series of serious criminal offences committed over two days. The offences included multiple counts of aggravated robbery, robbery, common assault, aggravated burglary, attempted theft, minor theft, and possession of a prohibited substance. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these crimes, considering both the objective severity of the offences and the offender’s background and circumstances.

The legal issues before the court involved the sentencing principles outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), particularly sections 6 and 7, which require the court to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court also needed to evaluate the mitigating factors presented by the offender, such as his young age, troubled upbringing, mental health issues, and drug addiction, while balancing these with the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system and to ensure the offender is held accountable for his actions.

In delivering the sentence, Elkaim J considered the severity and frequency of the offences, which were committed in a short span of time and involved significant threats and violence. The court acknowledged the offender’s troubled background, including a history of mental health issues and substance abuse, but also noted the serious nature of the crimes and the need for deterrence. Despite the offender’s youth and personal challenges, the court determined that imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the crimes committed. The sentences were structured to provide some concurrency to reflect the nature of the offences as a drug-induced spree but also to ensure that each serious offence received appropriate punishment. The court imposed a total effective sentence of 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days’ imprisonment, with a nonparole period of 1 year, 7 months, and 29 days. The sentences were backdated to commence on 7 March 2022.

The final orders of the court included specific sentences for each offence, ensuring that the offender’s term of imprisonment and nonparole period were clearly outlined, thereby providing clarity and finality to the sentencing process.

Orders