Beckett v The Queen - [2016] NSWDC 280

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beckett v R [2016] NSWDC 280
Hearing dates: 6 June 2016
Date of orders: 06 June 2016
Decision date: 06 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against severity of sentence – Common assault on security guard in Kings Cross – Appellant intoxicated – Local Court imposed s 9 bond for 12 months – Need for general deterrence – No evidence that sentence imposed would inhibit future career – Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Pattalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 171
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lauren Ann Beckett (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (Respondent)
Representation: Mr P Carey (Appellant)
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/23558
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Downing Centre Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

16 February 2016

Before:

Henderson CM

File Number(s):

2016/23558

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against the severity of sentence passed by his Honour Judge Henderson, the Chief Magistrate of this State, sitting in the Downing Centre Local Court on 16 February 2016. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge that on 23 January 2016, at Potts Point, she did assault Walid Ahmad. There was no averment that the appellant caused the victim any actual bodily harm.
The offence occurred outside The World Bar in Bayswater Road, Potts Point. The appellant and her boyfriend, Mr Kieran Hurt, were standing in a queue, seeking to enter the premises The victim, Mr Walid Ahmad, was employed by a security service, to act as a security guard at The World Bar, and to enforce the responsible service of alcohol. Mr Ahmad walked along the queue and noticed that Mr Hurt was unsteady on his feet. One of the reasons Mr Ahmad was walking along the queue, was to ascertain if any persons were too intoxicated to be admitted to the premises and to tell them to move on. Not only was Mr Hurt unsteady on his feet but Mr Ahmad determined that he was slurring his speech and he became verbally aggressive when Mr Ahmad spoke to him.
Mr Ahmad told Mr Hurt that he was too intoxicated to enter The World Bar and that he had to leave the queue and that he was not to remain within 50 metres of the entrance to the premises. The manager of the Bar, approached Mr Hurt and Mr Ahmad and reiterated the advice that Mr Ahmad had given to Mr Hurt. There was then a verbal argument. When Mr Ahmad and the manager started ushering Mr Hurt away from the queue, Mr Hurt hit the victim in the chest with his elbow, causing him pain.
At about the same time, the appellant told Mr Ahmad that Mr Hurt was her boyfriend and that he was to leave him alone. Mr Ahmad then started explaining to the appellant why Mr Hurt was being dealt with in…

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 Beckett v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beckett v The Queen [2016] NSWDC 280
Case: [2016] NSWDC 280
Decision Date: 06 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beckett v The Queen, the appellant, Beckett, challenged the severity of his sentence after being convicted of common assault on a security guard in Kings Cross. The incident occurred when Beckett, who was intoxicated, physically assaulted a security guard who was performing his duties. The Local Court imposed a bond under section 9 of the Bail Act for a period of 12 months, which Beckett now contends is excessively punitive. Beckett's appeal was heard by the higher court, which was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and whether it met the necessary objectives of punishment and deterrence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Local Court was manifestly excessive or inappropriate. Beckett argued that the 12-month bond was disproportionate and would unduly hinder his future employment prospects. The court needed to weigh the necessity for general deterrence against the potential impact on Beckett's personal and professional life. It was also necessary to consider whether the sentence served the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence without being excessively punitive.

The higher court examined the nature of the offence, Beckett's level of intoxication, and the need for a sentence that would deter similar conduct in the future. The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the sentence would significantly inhibit Beckett's future career prospects. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and ensuring that such assaults on security personnel are met with a firm judicial response. Given these considerations, the court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Beckett v R [2016] NSWDC 280
Hearing dates:	6 June 2016
Date of orders:	06 June 2016
Decision date:	06 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against severity of sentence – Common assault on security guard in Kings Cross – Appellant intoxicated – Local Court imposed s 9 bond for 12 months – Need for general deterrence – No evidence that sentence imposed would inhibit future career – Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Pattalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 171
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lauren Ann Beckett (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:	Mr P Carey (Appellant) Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/23558
Publication restriction:	No
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Downing Centre Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 16 February 2016 Before: Henderson CM File Number(s): 2016/23558