Scott v Collins - [2021] ACTSC 301

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Scott v Collins
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 301
Hearing Date:	1 November 2021
DecisionDate:	3 November 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [36]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal from conviction – offences of robbery – minor theft – use firearm – common assault – assault on the low end of objective seriousness – sentence manifestly excessive in the circumstances – magistrate failed to apply the appropriate discount for guilty pleas – magistrate gave no reasons for the discounts applied – sentences imposed involved an error – resentence required
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 309, 321 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 177(2), sch 1
Cases Cited:	Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Parties:	Brett Scott ( Appellant) Matthew Collins (First Respondent) John Luff (Second Respondent) Troy Lawrence (Third Respondent) Peter Brettell (Fourth Respondent) Alexandra Grigg (Fifth Respondent) Rhys Bennetts (Sixth Respondent) Scott Roberts (Seventh Respondent) Jane Kenehan (Eighth Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel S McLaughlin ( Appellant) C Muthurajah (Respondents)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondents)
File Number:	SCA 23 of 2021
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 23 June 2021 Case Title: Lawrence v Scott Court File Numbers: CC20/9574; CC20/6759; CC20/6841 CC20/8177; CC20/8202; CC20/8507 CC20/10118; CC20/13282; CC21/82

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

This is an appeal from a magistrate sitting in the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court who sentenced the appellant on a charge of robbery, six counts of minor theft, a count of using a prohibited firearm and a count of common assault. In relation to a breach of a good behaviour order relating to a minor theft the magistrate took no further action.

The total sentence imposed was a sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

The offending, maximum penalty, date of guilty plea and subject matter of the offending are described in the following table.

Charge	Details of offending	Maximum penalty	Sentence imposed (all with convictions)	Date and stage of plea of guilty
CC2020/8507: Robbery (contrary to s 309 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT))	21 September 2019 Aldi (alcohol, $59.98)	14 years’ imprisonment and/or 1400 penalty units	18 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 2 years) 25 August 2020 to 24 February 2022	18 September 2020 No brief of evidence prepared
CC2020/8202: Minor theft (contrary to s 321 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT))	4 November 2019 Best Friends Pet Supplies (pet food, $501.90)	6 months’ imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units	2 months’ imprisonment (reduced from 3 months) 25 February 2022 to 24 April 2022	18 September 2020 No brief of evidence prepared
CC2020/6841: Minor theft (contrary to s 321 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT))	13 April 2020 Woolworths (meat, $420)	6 months’ imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units	2 months’…

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 Scott v Collins

Details

AGLC: Scott v Collins [2021] ACTSC 301
Case: [2021] ACTSC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a magistrate on the appellant, Brett Scott. The appellant was convicted of robbery, six counts of minor theft, using a prohibited firearm, and common assault. The appeal is concerned with the aggregate sentence imposed, the sentence on each of the individual charges, and the failure of the magistrate to apply an appropriate discount for the appellant’s guilty pleas on the firearm and common assault charges. The appellant’s appeal was upheld in part and the matter was remitted to the magistrate for resentencing. The court found that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, that the sentence imposed on the common assault charge was manifestly excessive, and that the magistrate had failed to apply an appropriate discount for the guilty pleas on the firearm and common assault charges. The court resentenced the appellant to a period of imprisonment of 30 months and 7 days. The non-parole period was set at 20 months.

Orders