Hall v CL [2015] ACTSC 286

Hall v CL [2015] ACTSC 286 - ACTSC 2015 case summary — Zoe

[139]

The maximum penalties for the offences which were: robbery - 1400 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $210,000) and imprisonment for 14 years; dishonestly taking someone else's motor vehicle without consent - 500 penalty units (that is, at the time, a fine of $75,000) and imprisonment for five years.
The sentence for robbery was nearly 10% of the statutory maximum and the sentence for dishonestly taking someone else's motor vehicle without consent was 10% of the statutory maximum.
The relevant features of the offence of robbery were (as set out in the appellant's submissions):
- The respondent used actual force to shove the victim away from the car, as opposed to threatening to use force;
- The victim was in a vulnerable position, alone in a car park at night time;
- The items stolen were of considerable value, a car, wallet and mobile phone;
- Most significantly the respondent had been on parole for seven months, having been released for violent offences, including aggravated robbery, which was committed in circumstances where he had stabbed a security guard in the shoulder who had prevented him from leaving a store after he had stolen alcohol, and an offence of wounding, in which he had stabbed a person in the stomach with scissors.
CL had a serious criminal record for like offences, relevantly, in 2013, convictions for common assault, aggravated robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intentional wounding, three convictions for common assault in 2010 and earlier convictions for assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, attempted aggravated robbery and making a demand with menaces as well as convictions for theft and minor theft offences, aggravated burglary, dishonestly riding in someone else's motor vehicle without consent and unlawful possession of property.
CL had served substantial terms of imprisonment including the earlier sentence he was still serving, said by Mr Fernandez to be for 3 years and 7 months, though I did not understand that period, and an earlier sentence of 12 months imprisonment, suspended after serving 9 months, for the third offence he had committed of dishonestly riding in someone else's motor vehicle without consent.
The prospects of rehabilitation for CL were poor, having regard to the following matters (set out in the appellant's submissions);
- Being assessed as a high-risk of general re-offending;
- He was on parole at the time he committed the offences. However, by the time the subject offences were committed, the respondent had already been breached by the parole for failing to comply with a number of conditions of his parole;
- He had previously been subject to a number of community based orders including three Good Behaviour Orders which he had failed to complete;
- He had been assessed as using drugs at a substantial level in the year prior to 31 July 2015;
- He had long criminal history dating back 10 years, comprising of serious offending;
- Notwithstanding he had completed rehabilitation programs while in the AMC in 2014, he had committed the subject offences.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (208 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (5)

Cases Cited (15)