The Queen v BB - [2015] ACTSC 304

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v BB
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 304
Hearing Date(s):	18 September 2015
DecisionDate:	24 September 2015
Before:	Refshauge ACJ
Decision:	1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 25 October 2013 be cancelled. 2. The convictions entered for the following offences be confirmed: a) Aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011; b) Aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011; c) Aggravated burglary at Kambah on 17 November 2011; d) Burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011; e) Theft of property from the burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011; f) Taking and using motor vehicle without a consent on 21 November 2011; g) Burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011; h) Theft of property from the burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011; i) Damage of property; j) Dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle between 29 September and 9 October 2012; k) Burglary at O’Connor on 13 November 2013; and l) Damaging property on 30 November 2014. 3. For the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011 BB be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 18 March 2013. 4. For the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011, BB be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 18 May 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011. 5. For the aggravated burglary in Kambah on 17 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 September 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011. 6. For the theft of property from that aggravated burglary, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 September 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for that aggravated burglary. 7. For the burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 November 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Kambah. 8. For the theft of property from that burglary, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 November 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for that burglary. 9. For taking and using a motor vehicle without consent on 21 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 December 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the burglary at Greenway. 10. For the burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011, BB be sentenced to eleven months imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the taking and using the motor vehicle without consent. 11. For the theft of property from that burglary, BB be sentenced to six 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 The Queen v BB

Details

AGLC: The Queen v BB [2015] ACTSC 304
Case: [2015] ACTSC 304
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v BB involved a series of criminal offences committed by the defendant, BB, which led to an appeal regarding the sentencing. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the original sentences and determining whether they were appropriate in light of the defendant's offending history and circumstances. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentences imposed were adequate and whether they appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's history of re-offending, and the objectives of sentencing. The court was also required to consider whether the cumulative effect of the sentences was justified and whether any alternative forms of punishment, such as a Good Behaviour Order, had been appropriately applied and subsequently breached.

The High Court considered the cumulative effect of the sentences and the defendant's persistent re-offending despite previous penalties, including a Good Behaviour Order. The court noted that BB had breached the Good Behaviour Order multiple times, leading to further criminal activity. The cumulative nature of the sentences was deemed appropriate given the defendant's history and the need to deter future offending. The court also highlighted the importance of the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The sentences were structured to ensure that they reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community from further harm by the defendant.

Following its review, the High Court decided to cancel the Good Behaviour Order and confirmed the convictions for the listed offences. The court imposed new sentences, with specific start dates to ensure that the cumulative effect was accurately reflected. The sentences ranged from six months to twelve months of imprisonment, with some sentences to run concurrently and others cumulatively. The total sentence amounted to a period of imprisonment from 18 March 2013 to 17 February 2016. The court's decision aimed to address the defendant's persistent offending while also considering the need for deterrence and community protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Good Behaviour Order made on 25 October 2013 be cancelled.

2. The convictions entered for the following offences be confirmed:

a) Aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011;

b) Aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011;

c) Aggravated burglary at Kambah on 17 November 2011;

d) Burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011;

e) Theft of property from the burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011;

f) Taking and using motor vehicle without a consent on 21 November 2011;

g) Burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011;

h) Theft of property from the burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011;

i) Damage of property;

j) Dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle between 29 September and 9 October 2012;

k) Burglary at O’Connor on 13 November 2013; and

l) Damaging property on 30 November 2014.

3. For the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011 BB be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 18 March 2013.

4. For the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011, BB be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 18 May 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 22 April 2011.

5. For the aggravated burglary in Kambah on 17 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 September 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Ngunnawal on 25 April 2011.

6. For the theft of property from that aggravated burglary, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 September 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for that aggravated burglary.

7. For the burglary at Greenway on 17 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 November 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the aggravated burglary at Kambah.

8. For the theft of property from that burglary, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 November 2013, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for that burglary.

9. For taking and using a motor vehicle without consent on 21 November 2011, BB be sentenced to ten months imprisonment to commence on 18 December 2013, that is, to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for the burglary at Greenway.

10. For the burglary at Hawker on 24 November 2011, BB be sentenced to eleven months imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to three months on the sentence for the taking and using the motor vehicle without consent.

11. For the theft of property from that burglary, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2014, that is, to be wholly concurrent on the sentence for that burglary.

12. For the offence of damaging property, BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 September 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to two months on the sentence for the burglary at Hawker.

13. For dishonestly without consent riding in a motor vehicle between 29 September and 9 October 2012, BB be sentenced to eight months imprisonment to commence on 18 November 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence for the offence of damaging property.

14. For the burglary at O’Connor on 30 November 2012 BB be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence on 18 December 2014, that is, to be cumulative as to five months on the sentence for the dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent.

15. For damaging property on 30 November 2013 BB be sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence on 18 August 2015, that is, to be cumulative as to two months with the sentence for the burglary.

16. That is a total sentence of imprisonment to commence on 18 March 2013 and to end on 17 February 2016.

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.