1. For the offence of CC2022/271, choking, suffocating or strangling another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) a sentence of 6 months and 4 days imprisonment is imposed, reduced from 7 months on account of the guilty plea, to commence on 4 July 2023 and conclude on 7 January 2024.
2. For the offence of CC2022/7408, the second charge of choking, suffocating or strangling another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), a sentence of 7 months and 1 day is imposed, reduced from 8 months on account of the guilty plea to commence on 4 August 2023 and conclude on 4 March 2024.
3. The total sentence of 8 months and 1 day will be suspended from 5 July 2023 on the condition that the offender enter into a good behaviour order for the remainder of the sentence (5 July 2023 to 4 March 2024) and undertake to comply with the obligations under ss 85 and 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). I impose the following additional condition:
(a) That the offender continue to attend any rehabilitation or intervention program and be subject to such supervision through Corrective Services, that the Director-General or their delegate considers to be appropriate.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of choking – where victims were children – where conduct was of lower objective seriousness – where offender had presence of childhood trauma and social disadvantage – suspended sentence imposed
[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 DPP v Rohrlach
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
DPP v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166
Case
[2023] ACTSC 166
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bradley Wayne Rohrlach has pleaded guilty to two counts of choking children, in contravention of s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account various legal factors and considerations. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the conduct, the personal circumstances of the victims, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court decided to impose a suspended sentence, allowing the offender to continue participating in rehabilitation programs while under supervision. The total sentence of 8 months and 1 day will be suspended from 5 July 2023, subject to the offender entering into a good behaviour order and complying with the obligations under ss 85 and 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). The court also imposed an additional condition that the offender continue to attend any rehabilitation or intervention program and be subject to supervision through Corrective Services.