The Queen v RM - [2013] ACTSC 289

THE QUEEN v RM
[2013] ACTSC 289 (8 November 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary – Burglary – Theft – Minor theft

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 77, Pt 8A
Criminal Act 1900 (ACT), s 116(3)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311, 312, 321

Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433

Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314
R v Hayes (1984) 11 A Crim R 187
R v Smith [1964] Crim LR 70
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 370 of 2011
No. SCC 143 of 2012

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 370 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 143 of 2012

R
V
RM

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  8 November 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

RM be convicted of aggravated burglary of a house in Griffith on 27 July 2011.

RM be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 May 2013.

RM be convicted of theft of money on 27 July 2011 from that aggravated burglary.

RM be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 May 2013.

RM be convicted of the burglary at the house in Wanniassa on 25 September 2009.

RM be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2014.

RM be convicted of theft of property on 25 September 2009 during that burglary.

RM be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2014.

RM be convicted of burglary of a house in Kambah on 26 January 2011.

RM be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 July 2014.

RM be convicted of the burglary of a shop at Yarralumla between 21 and 22 June 2011.

RM be sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2015.

RM be convicted of theft of money taken between 21 and 22 June from that burglary.

RM be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to commence on 2 January 2015.

That sentence be suspended from 8 November 2013, for a period of two years.

RM be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years to include the following conditions:

(a) A probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General, or a person delegated to supervise him, for a period of twelve months, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him as to alcohol and drug treatment and counselling, and to anger management issues.

(b) A community service work condition that he perform 100 hours of community service work within twelve…

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 RM

Details

AGLC: The Queen v RM [2013] ACTSC 289
Case: [2013] ACTSC 289
Decision Date: 8 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against RM, who was charged with aggravated burglary of a house in Griffith on 27 July 2011. The matter was heard in a higher court where the defendant contested the charges. The primary legal issues were whether the defendant was guilty of aggravated burglary and whether he was also guilty of burglary and theft.

The court determined that the defendant had entered the house by force and committed an aggravated burglary. The court also found that the defendant was guilty of burglary and theft, given that he entered the house without permission and took property from the premises. The court emphasised the seriousness of the defendant's actions and considered the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences and the defendant's criminal history.

The court convicted RM of aggravated burglary of a house in Griffith on 27 July 2011, along with burglary and theft. The court imposed a sentence that took into account the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also considered the defendant's criminal history in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

RM be convicted of aggravated burglary of a house in Griffith on 27 July 2011.

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.