R v Williams-Savage - [2021] ACTSC 271

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams-Savage
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 271
Hearing Date:	13 October 2021
DecisionDate:	14 October 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [53]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – attempted burglary – burglary – damaging property – theft – aggravated burglary – drive motor vehicle without consent – attempted take motor vehicle without consent – driving while disqualified – high number of offences committed over confined period – offending associated with illicit drug use – young offender – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – sentences of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 65, 79, 151 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), ss 35A, 63 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 308, 311, 312, 318, 403 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Jacob Williams-Savage ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 222 of 2020; SCC 223 of 2020 SCC 224 of 2020; SCC 225 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 2 July 2021, after a six-day judge alone trial, I found the offender, Jacob Williams‑Savage, guilty of the following offences:

(a) Count 1: attempted burglary, contrary to s 311 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both).

(b) Counts 2 and 7: damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both).

(c) Counts 3 and 10: burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both).

(d) Counts 4 and 8: theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units or both).

(e) Count 6: aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment, 2000 penalty units or both).

(f) Count 11: drive motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty 5 years’ imprisonment, 500 penalty units or both).

On the first day of the trial, the offender entered a plea of guilty to a further count of drive motor vehicle without consent, which was count 14.

Prior to the offender being committed for the trial, he pleaded guilty to the following offences in the Magistrates Court:

(a)Five counts of burglary contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code.
(b)Five counts of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code.
(c)Five counts of damaging property contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code.
(d)One count of attempted burglary contrary to s 311 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code.
(e)One count of attempted take motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code

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 Williams-Savage

Details

AGLC: R v Williams-Savage [2021] ACTSC 271
Case: [2021] ACTSC 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams-Savage involved the offender, Jacob Williams-Savage, who was found guilty of multiple charges of attempted burglary, burglary, damaging property, theft, driving without consent, and driving while disqualified. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for these offences. The legal issues included the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, the offender's criminal history, and the effect of the offender's pleas of guilty on the sentence. The court also had to consider the relevance of the offender's participation in an intensive correction order (ICO) that had expired at the time of the sentencing hearing.

The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which involved a series of commercial burglaries and thefts that occurred over a short period of time. The court also took into account the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his history of drug use, his family support, and his motivation for rehabilitation. The offender's criminal history, which included multiple driving-related offences, was also considered. The court determined that the offender's return to illicit drug use was a significant factor in the offending and that there were reasonable prospects for his rehabilitation if he could address his drug use.

The court imposed sentences of imprisonment for each offence, taking into account the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the need to introduce a degree of concurrency in the sentences due to the close temporal relationship between the offences. The court ordered that the sentences commence on 1 May 2020 and that the non-parole period be set at 48 months, starting on 1 May 2020 and ending on 31 April 2024. The court also ordered that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of two years and one day on each of the charges of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender, with those periods to be concurrent not cumulative.

Orders