Celeska v Langlands - [2014] ACTSC 211

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Celeska v Langlands
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 211
Hearing Date:	30 July 2014
DecisionDate:	30 July 2014
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The appeal is allowed and the Magistrates Court orders are set aside. 2. The appellant is convicted and ordered to sign a good behaviour undertaking, subject only to the core conditions, for 12 months.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appellant convicted and sentenced for assault occasioning actual bodily harm – sentence of three months imprisonment to be fully suspended – appellant 18 years old, no criminal history, respected member of community, history of anxiety and depression due to facial deformity due to accident , character references – sentence said to be manifestly excessive – Magistrate relied on sentence imposed in Supreme Court for two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed by intoxicated offender with prior criminal history who used weapons including knife to inflict quite serious injuries on two victims – sentence manifestly excessive – appeal upheld – appellant convicted and good behaviour order made.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 R v Evans [2012] ACTSC, Refshauge J, 16 February 2012 R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
Parties:	Christina Celeska (Appellant) Heath Langlands (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr P Bevan (Appellant) Ms A Begley (Respondent)
Solicitors Bevan & Co Lawyers and Conveyancers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 14 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Cook Date of Decision: 28 February 2014 Case Title: Heath Langlands v Christina Celeska Court File Number: CC No 6177 of 2013

This is an appeal against a sentence of three months imprisonment imposed in the Magistrates Court after a plea of guilty to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The offence was committed on 10 May 2013 at the Canberra Centre food court, where the appellant assaulted a former friend whom she believed had interfered in the appellant’s relationship with a boyfriend. The assault consisted of punching the victim in the back of the head with a closed fist, and then kicking and punching the victim after she had fallen to the ground. The consequences of the assault seem to have consisted of:

(a)pain to the back of the victim’s head;
(b)a swollen lip; and
(c)the opening of a scab on the victim’s knee.

I note first that photographs tendered in the Magistrates Court show what is clearly a scab and therefore susceptible to being opened by a reasonably minor blow, but it was described in the Magistrates Court and in the police statement as a scar, which one might think would take a considerably more significant blow to open up.

I also note that it…

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 Celeska v Langlands

Details

AGLC: Celeska v Langlands [2014] ACTSC 211
Case: [2014] ACTSC 211
Decision Date: 30 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Celeska v Langlands involved the appellant, who had been convicted and sentenced in the Magistrates Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The sentence imposed was three months imprisonment, which was fully suspended. The appellant, an 18-year-old with no prior criminal history, was described as a respected member of the community. He had a history of anxiety and depression stemming from a facial deformity due to an accident, and the court had received character references in his favour. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Magistrate had based the sentence on a Supreme Court case involving an intoxicated offender with a prior criminal history who had used weapons, including a knife, to inflict quite serious injuries on two victims. The appellant contended that the Magistrate’s reliance on this case was inappropriate and that the sentence was, therefore, manifestly excessive.

The legal issues in this appeal centred around whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive and whether the Magistrate erred in relying on the Supreme Court case as a comparative benchmark. The appellant argued that the circumstances of the Supreme Court case were significantly different from his own case, and that the Magistrate should have considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, lack of criminal history, and the impact of his facial deformity on his mental health. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was unjust in light of these factors.

In considering the appeal, the court found that the Magistrate had indeed erred in relying on the Supreme Court case as a benchmark. The differences in the circumstances of the two cases were substantial, and the Magistrate had not adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances. The court held that the sentence of three months imprisonment, fully suspended, was manifestly excessive given the appellant's age, lack of criminal history, and his personal circumstances. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Magistrates Court orders were set aside. The appellant was convicted, and a good behaviour undertaking was ordered for 12 months, subject only to the core conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed and the Magistrates Court orders are set aside.

2. The appellant is convicted and ordered to sign a good behaviour undertaking, subject only to the core conditions, for 12 months.

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.