Matthew Peter White be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, to commence on 23 August 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary.

The sentence be suspended from 5 June 2014.

Matthew Peter White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with a probation condition that he accept supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, including as to counselling for unresolved trauma issues and any ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling for two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers to be appropriate.

The illegal entry into business premises is a serious matter. Not only does it involve a trespass on people’s premises, but it can cause damage and disruption, and it causes businesses to take security measures which can cause inconvenience to members of the public and be passed on as an expense to consumers. Theft of goods from such premises also requires businesses to increase the price of their goods having an effect on all consumers, quite apart from the wrong of taking property when it does not belong to the thief.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that the legislature provides for serious punishment for offences of burglary and theft, which include the unauthorised entry into businesses and the stealing of their property.

Matthew Peter White has pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft.

Burglary is an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which provides for a maximum penalty of 1,400 penalty units (that is, a fine of $154,000) or imprisonment for fourteen years, or both. Theft is an offence under s 308 of 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 [2014] ACTSC 158
Case: [2014] ACTSC 158
Decision Date: 5 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved the defendant, Matthew Peter White, who was charged with burglary and theft of electronic equipment. The incident occurred on 21 May 2013, at Braddon, and was heard by the court. The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the defendant was guilty of the burglary and theft, and if so, what appropriate sentence should be imposed. The court was required to consider the severity of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating factors.

The court found Matthew Peter White guilty of both the burglary and theft of electronic equipment. In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances of the offence. The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and the lack of any prior convictions. However, the court also considered the seriousness of the crimes, which involved entering a premises unlawfully and stealing valuable electronic equipment. The court further assessed the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, taking into account his acceptance of responsibility and his willingness to engage in treatment for unresolved trauma issues and ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling.

The court sentenced Matthew Peter White to fifteen months’ imprisonment for the burglary and nine months’ imprisonment for the theft, with the sentences to run concurrently. The court suspended the sentence from 5 June 2014, and imposed additional conditions under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). These conditions included requiring the defendant to sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations, accept supervision of the Director-General or her delegate, and obey all reasonable directions, including counselling for unresolved trauma issues and any ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling for two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers to be appropriate. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account the defendant's culpability, the need for deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Matthew Peter White be convicted of burglary at Braddon on 21 May 2013.

2.Matthew Peter White be sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, to commence on 23 August 2013.

3.Matthew Peter White be convicted of theft of electronic equipment on 21 May 2013.

4.Matthew Peter White be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, to commence on 23 August 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the burglary.

5.The sentence be suspended from 5 June 2014.

6. Matthew Peter White be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years, with a probation condition that he accept supervision of the Director-General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, including as to counselling for unresolved trauma issues and any ongoing drug and alcohol treatment or counselling for two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers to be appropriate.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v White [2014] ACTSC 158

Most Recent Citation

R v Matthew Peter White [2015] ACTSC 254

Cases citing this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Clissold
[2023] ACTSC 250

…52 R v Pocock [2015] ACTSC 77 R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; NSWCCA 435 R v Reid [2021] ACTSC 72 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 62; 16 VR 269 ; R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 Smith v O’Dell [2016] ACTSC 176 Wyper v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 59…
Smith v O'Dell
[2016] ACTSC 176

…R v White [2014] ACTSC 158…
R v Smith
[2022] ACTSC 288 Para 5

…tten submissions on behalf of Mr Smith, referred to three decisions as comparable and of assistance to the Court: R v Reid [2021] ACTSC 72, R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 and R v Pocock [2015] ACTSC 77.…
R v Coleman
[2021] ACTSC 349

…] NSWCCA 111: 46 NSWLR 346 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364 R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 151 R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252 Stafford v The Queen (1997) 97 A Crim R 85…
R v Antonovic (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 338

…ACTSC 280 R v Roux (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 361 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Shrestha [1991] HCA 26; 173 CLR 48 R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 Saga v Reid and Collett [2010] ACTSC 59 Sampson v De Haan [2016] ACTSC 327 Stewart v Greenup [2017] ACTSC…
R v Slattery
[2021] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…out in R v Ponfield at [48] have, however, been accepted as relevant in this Territory (Dickson v Johnston & Ors [2013] ACTSC 94 at [142]; R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 at [33]; Smith v O'Dell [2016] ACTSC 176 at [34]). In this case, of course, there were nine burglaries, each of which were somewhat different, though…
R v Matthew Peter White (No 3)
[2016] ACTSC 285 Para 1

…te, who committed the offences of burglary and theft on 21 May 2013. I originally sentenced Mr White for those offences on 5 June 2014. See R v White [2014] ACTSC 158.…
R v Ogilvie
[2015] ACTSC 296 Para 1

…v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383, it has been held in the R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 at 337; [48] that it should be so considered; see R v White [2014] ACTSC 158 at [33].…
R v Matthew Peter White
[2015] ACTSC 254 Para 1

…as required under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), made a Good Behaviour Order for two years with a probation condition: see R v White [2014] ACTSC 158.…

View all 9 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Love v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 8 Para 30

…will ordinarily attract a sentence of twelve to eighteen months' imprisonment in the absence of particular aggravating features. See Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8 at [13].…
R v Ponfield
[1999] NSWCCA 435 Para 29

…sidered a matter of aggravation. See R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383. Despite that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held in R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 at 337; [48] that accompanying burglary with “vandalism and by any other significant damage to property is an aggravating feature”.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 22

…mitted on the same day and many years ago. While his criminal record denies him the leniency that a crime free record would ( Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477), there have been no such offences committed by him in the last ten years.…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 29

…ses, that, of course, could have been charged as a separate offence and would ordinarily not be considered a matter of aggravation. See R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383. Despite that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held in R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 at 337; [48] that accompanying burglary with “van…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
7 2 mentions (from Para 1)