Field v Unas - [2019] ACTSC 13

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Field v Unas
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 13
Hearing Date:	30 January 2019
DecisionDate:	30 January 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against sentence – Whether adequate reasons given for sentence involving a period of full-time imprisonment.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 12
Cases Cited:	Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 200 CLR 321 R v Horton-Hegarty [2017] ACTSC 268 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 The Queen v DK [2016] ACTCA 7
Parties:	Jacob Alexander Field (Appellant) Ralph Unas (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Kukulies-Smith (Appellant) Mr M Fernandez (Respondent)
Solicitors Kami Saeedi Law (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 41 of 2018
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 13 August 2018 Case Title: R v Field Court File Number(s): CC 3908 of 2018

Murrell CJ

The appeal

The appellant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Nesbitt that occurred on 22 October 2017.

On 13 August 2018, the Chief Magistrate sentenced the offender to nine months' imprisonment, to be suspended after three months subject to undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations for a period of 18 months from release. At the same time, her Honour imposed an 18-month good behaviour order for an associated offence of common assault on Mr Robertson.

The appellant submitted that the Court had erred in failing to adequately explain why the sentence of imprisonment included a period of full-time imprisonment.

Facts

In the early hours of 22 October 2017, the appellant and a co-offender, Mr Latu, followed Mr Tink and his group of friends from the Mooseheads Pub and Nightclub in London Circuit to Theatre Lane, near Vernon Circle in Civic. They instigated a conversation with Mr Tink and his group.

The appellant and Mr Latu approached Mr Tink, who by that stage was lying supine on the road, severely affected by alcohol. Someone began to urinate on Mr Tink. He got up and attempted to push the appellant and co-offender away. Mr Latu ran from the scene, followed by Mr Tink, who was followed by the appellant.

Mr Latu stopped, turned, punched Mr Tink in the head and ran off, leaving Mr Tink unconscious on the ground. The appellant remained with Mr Tink, seemingly concerned about his welfare. Mr Tink's friends (including Mr Nesbitt) arrived at the scene and commenced a heated conversation with the appellant, believing that he was responsible for Mr Tink's condition. The appellant walked away.

Having ascertained that Mr Tink appeared to be seriously injured, Mr Nesbitt ran after the appellant to remonstrate with him. The appellant and Mr Latu began to push and punch Mr Nesbitt. He raised his hand to his face to protect himself, but the appellant and co-offender continued to assault him. He retreated…

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 Field v Unas

Details

AGLC: Field v Unas [2019] ACTSC 13
Case: [2019] ACTSC 13
Decision Date: 30 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Field versus Unas, the appellant, Field, brought an appeal before the court against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The sentence in question involved a period of full-time imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the Magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for imposing the sentence. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the Magistrate had adequately articulated the reasons for the sentence, which included a period of full-time imprisonment.

The court carefully examined the reasons provided by the Magistrate for the sentence. The appellant contended that the reasons were insufficient, but the court found that the Magistrate had provided a comprehensive explanation, considering all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the Magistrate had provided adequate reasons for the sentence, which aligned with the principles of sentencing in criminal law.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was that the Magistrate had correctly applied the sentencing principles and provided sufficient justification for the sentence imposed, including the period of full-time imprisonment. The court found no error in the Magistrate's decision-making process. 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.