R v Wright - [2018] ACTSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wright
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 58
Hearing Dates:	14 December 2017; 21 February 2018; 6 March 2018
DecisionDate:	6 March 2018
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. See [76] to [84] below. 2. For the purpose of s 35(3) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), her Honour is not satisfied that Ms Wright did not comply with the immediate suspension notice given in July 2017.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – drink-driving – offender intoxicated – whether offences premeditated – arson aggravated by being committed at night and by use of accelerant – whether revenge was motive – whether offence committed in context of domestic relationship is an aggravating factor – separate breach of family violence order.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 1995 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (Act), s 19 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 404(1) Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 43 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), ss 19(1), 26 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68D
Cases Cited:	R v Brymer [2016] ACTSC 194 R v Dunn [2004] NSWCCA 41; 144 A Crim R 180 R v Slater [2015] ACTSC 323 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Alison Margrett Wright (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms M Kent (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Rachel Bird & Co (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 241 of 2017; SCC 242 of 2017; SCC 343 of 2017

The offences

Alison Wright has pleaded guilty to four offences as follows:

(a)two offences of arson, arising under s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 15 years;
(b)one offence of contravening a family violence order arising under s 43 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including five years imprisonment; and
(c)one offence of driving as a first offender with blood alcohol level 4, arising under s 19(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) and, under s 26 of that Act, carrying a maximum penalty of 9 months imprisonment and a fine of 15 penalty units, currently $2,250, and a default disqualification period of three years, which may be reduced by the court to a period of not less than six months.

That last offence is before me as a related offence for sentencing under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) and s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), and for the purposes of s 68D of the Supreme Court Act, I note that I consider it would be in the interests of justice to deal with that offence in these proceedings.

The incidents

The incidents from which these charges arose took place in July and December 2017.

The following description of the July incident…

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 Wright

Details

AGLC: R v Wright [2018] ACTSC 58
Case: [2018] ACTSC 58
Decision Date: 6 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wright, the defendant, Ms Wright, was charged with multiple offences including arson and drink-driving. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central dispute in this case was whether Ms Wright had intentionally committed the acts of arson and drink-driving, as well as whether certain factors should be considered as aggravating circumstances during sentencing.

The court was required to determine the nature and intent behind Ms Wright's actions, particularly whether the arson was premeditated. The defendant claimed that the arson was an impulsive act rather than a planned revenge attack, despite evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the offences were aggravated by the fact that they occurred at night and involved the use of an accelerant. Furthermore, the court had to consider if the context of a domestic relationship constituted an aggravating factor and whether Ms Wright's breach of a family violence order should be taken into account.

The court found that Ms Wright had intentionally set fire to the premises, which was not an impulsive act but rather a premeditated revenge attack. The court also concluded that the offences were aggravated by the timing and the use of an accelerant. While the domestic relationship context and the breach of the family violence order were considered, they did not significantly alter the court's view of the gravity of the crimes. Ultimately, Ms Wright was found guilty and sentenced accordingly, with specific orders regarding her punishment detailed in the court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. See [76] to [84] below.

2. For the purpose of s 35(3) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), her Honour is not satisfied that Ms Wright did not comply with the immediate suspension notice given in July 2017.

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.