R v Wickes - [2018] ACTSC 225

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wickes
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 225
Hearing Date:	17 August 2018
DecisionDate:	17 August 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [35]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intentionally causing damage to property – use an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm - aggravated burglary
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 27(3)(c) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 312 and 403(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 11(1)(b)
Cases Cited:	R v Lindley-Jones [2014] ACTSC 296 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Seears [2015] ACTSC 109
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Benjamin John Wickes (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Swan (Crown) Mr S McLaughlin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 88 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 20 April 2018, the offender pleaded guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to the following four charges:

(a)Damaging property (CC 2018/2415), contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000.
(b)Two charges of using an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm (CC 2018/2416; CC 2018/2417), contrary to s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Aggravated burglary (CC 2018/3735), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $300,000.

On 15 May 2018, I referred the offender to Restorative Justice. On 15 August 2018, a letter was received from the Restorative Justice Unit stating that the “matter is not suitable to progress at this time”.

The offender was born in 1992 in Canberra. He had a stable upbringing and remains close to his parents and siblings.

The offender left school after Year 10 and then completed a plumbing apprenticeship. He worked in this occupation for eight years but then lost his licence and commenced work as a scaffolder. He worked notwithstanding a drug and alcohol dependency. He suffered a shoulder injury in 2017 which resulted in him taking five months off work.

The offender seems to have begun drinking heavily after the breakdown of a relationship when he was 21 years of age. At the same time he began using cocaine on a daily basis. A drug abuse screening test earlier this month indicated a severe level of drug related abuse requiring intensive assessment.

The offender is presently participating in the Solaris Therapeutic Community Program in the prison. He is waiting for admission to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre.

The offender has been assessed as having a medium to low risk of reoffending, primarily because of his supportive family and insight into his offending behaviour. As with so many…

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 Wickes

Details

AGLC: R v Wickes [2018] ACTSC 225
Case: [2018] ACTSC 225
Decision Date: 17 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wickes arose from an incident where the defendant caused significant damage to property during the commission of an aggravated burglary. The defendant used an offensive weapon that posed a serious risk to human life or grievous bodily harm. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions. The court was required to consider the severity of the crime, the use of a dangerous weapon, and the potential impact on public safety.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime of aggravated burglary, which involved intentionally causing damage to property with an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to balance the need for punishment with considerations of deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The defendant's extensive criminal history and the potential risk he posed to society were also factors that the court had to weigh in its sentencing decision.

The court determined that the gravity of the offence and the use of a dangerous weapon warranted a substantial sentence. It considered the defendant's history of violent criminal behaviour and the significant risk he posed to the community. The court concluded that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent to similar future offences. The High Court imposed a custodial sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the aims of rehabilitation and community protection. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for aggravated burglaries involving offensive weapons are sufficiently severe to deter such conduct and protect the public.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35]

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.