Case Title:	R v Winters
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 371
Hearing Date:	14 April 2022
Decision Date:	26 April 2022
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 26 November 2021 and end on 25 May 2023. 2. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft by joint commission and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment to commence on 26 March 2023 and end on 25 May 2023. 3. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of damaging property and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to commence on 26 January 2023 and end on 25 July 2023. 4. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of aggravated burglary by joint commission and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 26 April 2023 and end on 25 October 2024. 5. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment to commence on 26 June 2024 and end on 25 January 2025. 6. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment to commence on 26 August 2024 and end on 25 June 2025. 7. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of theft by joint commission and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment to commence on 26 December 2024 and end on 25 September 2025. 8. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to commence on 26 May 2025 and end on 25 November 2025. 9. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment to commence on 26 September 2025 and end on 25 November 2025. 10. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of trespass and fined $500, to be paid within 12 months. 11. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Joshua Luke Winters for 2 years from today, commencing on 26 April 2022 and ending on 25 April 2024, in respect of the primary offence of aggravated burglary of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. 12. That Order be extended to the offences of minor theft by joint commission, damaging property, aggravated burglary by joint commission, minor theft, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, theft by joint commission, driving while disqualified as a repeat offender and minor theft of which Joshua Luke Winters has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced, and which are associated offences of the primary offence. 13. It be noted that convictions for the primary offence and the associated offences have been recorded and that sentences have been imposed for each of them, which convictions and sentences be hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the Order. 14. The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order…

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 Winters

Details

AGLC: R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371
Case: [2022] ACTSC 371
Decision Date: 26 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Luke Winters was convicted on a number of criminal charges and sentenced in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The charges included aggravated burglary, minor theft, damaging property, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, theft, driving while disqualified as a repeat offender, and trespass. The court considered the subjective circumstances surrounding the offences, including Winters' disadvantaged childhood, and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fines, along with a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each offence, taking into account the subjective circumstances of Winters' disadvantaged childhood. The court also needed to decide whether a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was appropriate and, if so, what the terms of the order should be.

The court held that the subjective circumstances of Winters' disadvantaged childhood warranted consideration but did not mitigate the seriousness of the offences. The court found that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was appropriate and imposed a custodial sentence for the primary offence of aggravated burglary, as well as associated offences. The court also imposed fines and suspended the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order until the end of the total sentence. The treatment and supervision part of the Order included core conditions and specific directions for Winters to attend a residential drug rehabilitation program and comply with any further treatment or counselling required.

Joshua Luke Winters was convicted of the following offences and sentenced accordingly: (1) aggravated burglary and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; (2) minor theft by joint commission and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment; (3) damaging property and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; (4) aggravated burglary by joint commission and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; (5) minor theft and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment; (6) dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment; (7) theft by joint commission and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment; (8) driving while disqualified as a repeat offender and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; (9) minor theft and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment; and (10) trespass and fined $500. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was also made for a period of 2 years, with specific directions for Winters to attend a residential drug rehabilitation program and comply with any further treatment or counselling required.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 26 November 2021 and end on 25 May 2023.

2. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft by joint commission and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment to commence on 26 March 2023 and end on 25 May 2023.

3. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of damaging property and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to commence on 26 January 2023 and end on 25 July 2023.

4. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of aggravated burglary by joint commission and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 26 April 2023 and end on 25 October 2024.

5. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment to commence on 26 June 2024 and end on 25 January 2025.

6. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment to commence on 26 August 2024 and end on 25 June 2025.

7. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of theft by joint commission and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment to commence on 26 December 2024 and end on 25 September 2025.

8. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of driving while disqualified as a repeat offender and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to commence on 26 May 2025 and end on 25 November 2025.

9. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of minor theft and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment to commence on 26 September 2025 and end on 25 November 2025.

10. Joshua Luke Winters be convicted of trespass and fined $500, to be paid within 12 months.

11. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Joshua Luke Winters for 2 years from today, commencing on 26 April 2022 and ending on 25 April 2024, in respect of the primary offence of aggravated burglary of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

12. That Order be extended to the offences of minor theft by joint commission, damaging property, aggravated burglary by joint commission, minor theft, dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent, theft by joint commission, driving while disqualified as a repeat offender and minor theft of which Joshua Luke Winters has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced, and which are associated offences of the primary offence.

13. It be noted that convictions for the primary offence and the associated offences have been recorded and that sentences have been imposed for each of them, which convictions and sentences be hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the Order.

14. The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for the primary and associated offences be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today, 26 April 2022, until 25 November 2025.

15. Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Joshua Luke Winters be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 26 April 2024, until the end of the total sentence, 25 November 2025, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment.

16. For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:

1. The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed;

2. Joshua Luke Winters travel directly from this Court today to Canberra Recovery Services, Fyshwick ACT, and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program at that facility by 1:00 pm today, 26 April 2022.

3. Joshua Luke Winters be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services, to not leave the facility until he has completed the course and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;

4. Should Joshua Luke Winters leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;

5. Joshua Luke Winters undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time; and

6. Joshua Luke Winters comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means.

17. Joshua Luke Winters be directed to appear by electronic means in Court on Friday 6 May 2022 at 12:30 pm.

18. Joshua Luke Winters be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court precincts to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force.

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 Winters [2022] ACTSC 371

Most Recent Citation

R v Campbell (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 370

Cases citing this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Swain (a pseudonym) (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 209

…WCCA 158; 51 NSWLR 530 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 R v Watson [2021] ACTSC 339 R v Wilson [2022] ACTSC 7 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 Sampson v De Haan [2016] ACTSC 327 Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2…
Sullivan v The King
[2025] NTCCA 4

…357; The King v Mamarika [2024] NTCCA 5; The Queen v Rindjarra [2008] NTCCA 9; Truong v The Queen (2015) 35 NTLR 186; R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371; R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114, referred to…
Hayne v Zheng
[2023] ACTSC 326

…1999] NSWCCA 11; 106 A Crim R 149 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v Ogilvie (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 265 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 Stoehr v Meyer [2016] ACTSC 144 The Queen v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358 The Queen v Ruwhiu [2023] ACTCA 18 Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51 Turnbull v…
Peter v Brownlie
[2023] ACTSC 198

…TSC 148 R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Taouk (1993) 65 A Crim R 387 R v Williams (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 280 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Samani v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 23 Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51 Williams-Savage v The…
DPP v B Makoi; K Makoi; N Matot; A Matot; A Dau (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 125

…Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403 R v Edwards [2020] ACTSC 243 R v Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 SB v R [2020] NSWCCA 207 Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No 8) [2005] FCA 1348; 224 ALR 317…
R v Connors (No 3)
[2022] ACTSC 391

…90 R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tuifua (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 149 R v Weldon [2021] ACTSC 348 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 R v KN [2019] ACTSC 305 Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 Sladic v Proud [2013] ACTSC 232 Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 Wong v the Queen [2001] HCA 64; 2…
R v Winters (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 378 Para 10

…ourt and all the material admitted in evidence by the Court on the sentencing hearing of the charges against Mr Winters, as to which, see R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 at [44]–[87]. There was no objection to this material and its contents were not challenged.…
R v Winters (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 377 Para 10

…ourt and all the material admitted in evidence by the Court on the sentencing hearing of the charges against Mr Winters, as to which, see R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 at [44]–[87]. There was no objection to this material and its contents were not challenged.…
R v Campbell (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 370 Para 1

…he offence of burglary, current sentencing practice of that offence has been recently considered in R v Ruwhiu at [33]–[44] and also in R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371, though the latter was, in part, in relation to the more serious offence of aggravated burglary. While these considerations are relevant and will be ta…

View all 9 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 40 of 40 shown

R v Deng
[2022] ACTSC 143 Para 3

…ents (along with statements such as “the Crown contends”) is otiose, as it may otherwise appear to require a disputed facts hearing: R v Deng [2022] ACTSC 143 at [9].…
Lloyd v R
[2022] NSWCCA 18 Para 2

…e, some argument about the effectiveness of sentences in deterring people, but it is not necessary to address that debate here. See Lloyd v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 18 at [40].…
Elphick v The Queen
[2021] ACTCA 35 Para 7

…In this case, there is some information available for such guidance. Thus, in Elphick v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 35 at [17], the Court of Appeal cited without comment but with apparent approval, and in dismissing the prisoner's appeal, the following comment by the sentencing judge: 17. After acknowledging that sente…
R v Reid (No 1)
[2021] ACTSC 334 Para 17

…re have been considerations addressing the relevant factors of this offence identified in a number of cases including, in particular, R v Reid (No 1) [2021] ACTSC 334 at [26]–[28].…
R v Foster
[2021] ACTSC 229 Para 10

…R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster [2021] ACTSC 229. Attention has been given to each of them and the need for consistency that such consideration will reflect in the sentence to be imposed on Mr Winte…
R v McHughes
[2021] ACTSC 92 Para 8

…and Alcohol Sentencing List Eligibility Assessment dated 25 February 2022. These latter were the Eligibility Assessments as described in R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 at [7].…
R v Hancock
[2021] ACTSC 52 Para 8

…The relevant factors for burglary have been identified in R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 at [33] after a review of the relevant authorities. While aggravated burglary is a more serious version of the same offence, these factors are also relevant. It is not necessary to list them, but to identify those that are releva…
R v Pearson
[2020] ACTSC 375 Para 41

…ence, especially at night or where there are vulnerable occupants is more serious: Olney v Martin [2017] ACTSC 79 at [14], [18]. See also R v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 at [32], where it is also noted that the time taken during the trespass is relevant. Any damage done in the illegal entry or while inside is relevant…
R v Tonna (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 360 Para 32

…This offence, as explained in R v Tonna (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 360 at [30] is a serious offence, as it amounts to a defiance of a court order. Indeed, in Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 at 306–8, it was noted that in some jurisdictions it is ordinarily visited by a sentence of imprisonment, though that m…
R v Bessant
[2020] ACTSC 365 Para 10

…re R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296, R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster [2021] ACTSC 229. Attention has been given to each of them and the need for consistency that such consideration will reflect in the se…
R v Crawford (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 245 Para 10

…ch sentences. The sentences were R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296, R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster [2021] ACTSC 229. Attention has been given to each of them and the need for consistency that such consid…
R v McCurley
[2020] ACTSC 140 Para 10

…assessing reasonable approached to such sentences. The sentences were R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296, R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster [2021] ACTSC 229. Attention has been given to each of them and the…
R v Gray
[2020] ACTSC 40 Para 42

…it will be more serious: R v Thompson (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 53 at [76]. A rather incidental or careless offence would clearly be less severe: R v Grey [2020] ACTSC 40 at [13].…
R v Winters
[2019] ACTSC 289 Para 3

…consider changing his permanent address to the AMC because he is likely to be in and out of that institution for many years to come”: R v Winters [2019] ACTSC 289 at [7]. There was some expression there of hope, apparently, in an unexplained exhibit then tendered. Unfortunately, as these offences show, that glimmer…
Dawson v The Queen
[2019] ACTCA 9 Para 13

…ons of this Court, the sentences for the burglary and the thefts committed at the same time will generally be concurrent. See also Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [35]. These offences are dealt with further below.…
R v Norton
[2019] ACTSC 111 Para 16

…d two aggravated burglary offences. A good number of traffic offences are also included, including some “technical driving offences” ( R v Norton [2019] ACTSC 111 at [6]), but also including dishonestly taking, driving or riding in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. As he said, as noted above (at [94]), h…
R v Richardson
[2019] ACTSC 9

…Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTSC 9 Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 Elphick v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 35 Haisman v Smelcher [1953] VLR 625 Halden (1993) 9 A Crim R 30 Hili v The Quee…
R v John (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 186 Para 10

…the need for consistency that such consideration will reflect in the sentence to be imposed on Mr Winters. Reference was also made to R v John (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 186, but many of the sentences there were for rolled-up pleas, which makes comparison difficult.…
Singh v The Queen
[2017] ACTCA 17 Para 1

…Having pleaded guilty, the Court must now sentence Mr Winters for these offences. Such a sentence must be just and adequate: Singh v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 17 at [93].…
Olney v Martin
[2017] ACTSC 79 Para 41

…is relevant. Thus, for example, trespass in a residence, especially at night or where there are vulnerable occupants is more serious: Olney v Martin [2017] ACTSC 79 at [14], [18]. See also R v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 at [32], where it is also noted that the time taken during the trespass is relevant. Any damage…
R v Thompson (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 53 Para 42

…ugh some may also be irrelevant. Further, when a trespass breaches a fundamental right, such as privacy, it will be more serious: R v Thompson (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 53 at [76]. A rather incidental or careless offence would clearly be less severe: R v Grey [2020] ACTSC 40 at [13].…
R v Forrest (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 83 Para 10

…nces, the reasons do assist in assessing reasonable approached to such sentences. The sentences were R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296, R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster [2021] ACTSC 229. Attention has bee…
R v Ware
[2016] ACTSC 264 Para 38

…Cr App Rep (S) 104 at 107, by no means the only relevant factor. The circumstances in which the offence has been committed is also relevant: R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 at [60]. That the damage may be covered by insurance is not necessarily a matter of moderation, since it has a flow-on effect because of the effect o…
Quzag v The Queen (No 4)
[2016] ACTCA 27 Para 9

…arable cases, so that the relevant factors and reasons can be seen and understood. Nevertheless, no sentence is a precedent: Quzag v The Queen (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 27 at [44].…
Poole v Edwards
[2016] ACTSC 159 Para 32

…t in some jurisdictions it is ordinarily visited by a sentence of imprisonment, though that may not apply so much in the Territory: Poole v Edwards [2016] ACTSC 159 at [118]. It is also an undermining of the regulatory regime for driving, which is, of course, a potentially dire and dangerous, indeed possibly lethal…
R v McGrail
[2016] ACTSC 142 Para 13

…nd mental illness. There was no evidence of how he went at the program. He has also engaged in some other programs as SMART recovery (see R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142 at [78]–[80]), a program referred to in evidence as ADAPT and some counselling at Directions Health Services.…
R v Ogilvie
[2015] ACTSC 296 Para 10

…though all the decisions have differences, the reasons do assist in assessing reasonable approached to such sentences. The sentences were R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296, R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83, R v McCurley [2020] ACTSC 140, R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245, R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365 and R v Foster…
O'Brien v The Queen
[2015] ACTCA 47 Para 10

…ters has to be sentenced. These must be dealt with in accordance with sentencing principles. These have been helpfully set out in O'Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26]. Thus, a proper sentence must be fixed for each offence, though it must ensure that Mr Winters is not punished twice for the same criminality…
R v Davis
[2015] ACTSC 101 Para 7

…In R v Davis [2015] ACTSC 101, the Court applied it in the case of aggravated burglary, holding (at [45]) that what was required was “participation in a common purpose”. That is what s 45A of the Criminal Code also requires. Here, where the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts are that both Mr Winters and the co-…
R v Ridley
[2014] ACTSC 382 Para 3

…ct Statement, though without it, the Court can still appreciate, but only in general terms, the harm that such offences cause victims. See R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [43].…
R v McMahon
[2014] ACTSC 280 Para 13

…The property stolen was not particularly substantial, though in both cases it was the subject of separate charges. As noted in R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 and in many other decisions of this Court, the sentences for the burglary and the thefts committed at the same time will generally be concurrent. See also Dawso…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 4

…The courts have held that such experiences are relevant to sentencing and to the level of moral culpability of the offender: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. Further, the High Court has there accepted that, despite the passage of time and, importantly, the continuing commission of criminal offences…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 5

…us, while such statistics provide some information, it is the reasons why the sentencing have been fixed that is more important. See Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at 537; [54]–[55]. This does not deny that such statistics can provide some important information, but with significant limitations.…
Cotter v Corvisy
[2008] ACTSC 64 Para 32

…xplained in R v Tonna (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 360 at [30] is a serious offence, as it amounts to a defiance of a court order. Indeed, in Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 at 306–8, it was noted that in some jurisdictions it is ordinarily visited by a sentence of imprisonment, though that may not apply so m…
R v Button
[2002] NSWCCA 159 Para 6

…with one or more other people”. The phrase “in company” is not defined, but it has been the subject of judicial consideration. See R v Button [2002] NSWCCA 159; 54 NSWLR 455.…
R v Govinden
[1999] NSWCCA 118 Para 22

…n assessment must always be approached with caution and evaluated, especially in the light of actions taken as well as words spoken: see R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118; 106 A Crim R 314 at 319; [35].…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41 Para 2

…, that reliance for this is placed on Mr Winters' plea of guilty to that offence, which admits all the elements of the offence ( Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 at 157) and that has been relied on for this important element of the offence.…
Douglas v The Queen
[1995] FCA 411 Para 3

…is dependence on alcohol or drugs or both, often created because of early exposure to alcohol or drugs which can explain their entry into crime. See Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465 at 470.…
R v Davey
[1980] FCA 158 Para 2

…rarching purpose of the criminal law, that the community will be protected, will be achieved: Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 at 437; R v Davey (1980) 50 FLR 57 at 65.…
Channon v The Queen
[1978] FCA 16 Para 2

…hen, as required, after all, the overarching purpose of the criminal law, that the community will be protected, will be achieved: Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433 at 437; R v Davey (1980) 50 FLR 57 at 65.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 12A, 33, 35, 46J, 46K, 63, 7, 80S, 8... 13 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
116 3 mentions (from Para 37)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
85 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth)
11 2 mentions (from Para 40)
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)
32 2 mentions (from Para 31)
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT)
72 2 mentions (from Para 13)