Amberger v Stagg

[2019] ACTMC 26

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Amberger v Stagg

Citation:

[2019] ACTMC 26

Hearing Date(s):

26 July 2019

DecisionDate:

30 July 2019

Before:

Magistrate Theakston

Decision:

See [27]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – contravention of family violence order – stalking – common assault – use carriage service to menace and harass

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 35

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) s 43(2)

Cases Cited:

The Queen v BG (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, SCC 213 of 2009, Refshauge J, 1 December 2010)

Parties:

Eloise Amberger (Informant)

Matthew Stagg (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr N Deakes (Informant)

Ms C Duffy (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

CC 3895 of 2019; CC 3894 of 2019; CC 4526 of 2019; CC 12043 of 2018; CC 11080 of 2018; and CC 11081 of 2018

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Background

1. The offender has pleaded guilty to the following three charges:

(a)CC 3895 of 2019 – on 24 March 2019 assaulted another person contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900;

(b)CC 3894 of 2019 – on 24 March 2019 contravened a family violence order, contrary to s 43(2) of the Family Violence Act 2016; and

(c)CC 4526 of 2019 – between 3 November 2018 and 31 March 2019 stalked another person with intent to harass that person, contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900.

1. The offender pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second and third charges at his third appearance.  Following the service of the prosecution brief of evidence and at the second pre-hearing mention, the offender changed his pleas for those latter charges to guilty.  There was a strong prosecution case against the offender, including CCTV footage of the assault.  While the police were put to the task of preparing a brief of evidence, no hearing date had been listed and no witness put on notice to attend court on any specific day.  There is information within the Pre-Sentence Report consistent with the offender developing a degree of insight into his offending behaviour, including accepting that he only had himself to blame for the offending.  I therefore recognise the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty and the acceptance of responsibility by the offender.  I take that into account and will reduce the sentences, relative to what I would have otherwise imposed, by a factor of 15%.

1. The maximum penalties for these offences are 2 years, 5 years, and 5 years respectively.  The offender consented to me dealing with the second and third charges summarily.

Circumstances of the offences

1. The offender and the complainant had been in an intimate domestic relationship for the period of nine years between 2009 and 2018.  In October 2018 and following their separation, the offender was served with a family violence order that prohibited the offender from approaching, contacting, or engaging in…