Harrop v Evanson (a pseudonym) - [2023] ACTMC 28

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Harrop v Evanson (a pseudonym)

Citation:

[2023] ACTMC 28

Hearing Date(s):

11 July 2023

DecisionDate:

25 July 2023

Before:

Special Magistrate Richter

Decision:

Without conviction, the defendant is ordered to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Family Violence – Conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1996 (ACT) ss 24(1), 26(1):

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss7,10,13,17, 33, 34B

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) section 8(b)

Cases Cited:

See R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 at [106] – [107]
R v Massey [2022] ACTSC 3 at [1]
Munda v Western Australia[2013] HCA 38
DPP v Dunn [2022] ACTSC 355
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83
Islam v R [2013] ACTCA 10
Lukatela v Apostoloff [2010] ACTSC 74
Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26
Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26

R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22

Parties:

James Harrop (Informant)
Jadyn Evanson (a pseudonym) (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel
T Drumgold (Informant)
C Hitchens (Defendant)

Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant)
Aulich Criminal Law (Defendant)

File Number(s):

CC 2023/1432

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RICHTER:

The defendant is before the court having pleaded guilty to the following charge:

CC 2023/1432 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Crimes Act 1990 (ACT) section 24(1):
That she in the Australian Capital Territory, on 06 February 2023 did assault Kade Evanson (a pseudonym) and thereby occasioned to him actual bodily harm, and the offence involved family violence.
Maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.

The defendant had been further charged with assault. That charge was withdrawn by the prosecution at the time of the plea being entered in this matter and I am required to deal with the defendant on the basis of the entirety of her conduct being encompassed by the rolled-up charge underlying the charge to which she has pleaded guilty.[1]

The prosecution exercised its election pursuant to s374 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (“Crimes Act”) to have the charge disposed of summarily.

The prosecution election cannot be taken to infer that the matter is not a serious one. The election does not alter the maximum penalty but merely sets a jurisdictional limit; therefore, the nature of the offence as an indictable offence is also not altered. The jurisdictional maximum penalty in this Court is $15,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment by operation of the Crimes Act section 375.

Guilty plea

The defendant initially pleaded not guilty to both charges, but pleaded guilty at a pre-hearing mention on 13 June 2023, which was her seventh occasion before the court.

Section 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (“Sentencing Act”) provides for the court to impose a lesser penalty on the offender than it would otherwise have imposed if the offender had not pleaded guilty to the offence.

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 Harrop v Evanson (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Harrop v Evanson (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTMC 28
Case: [2023] ACTMC 28
Decision Date: 25 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrop v Evanson involved the defendant being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, within the context of family violence. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which determined the appropriate sentence for the defendant following their conviction. The court's judgment and punishment were the primary focus of the case, particularly considering the specific circumstances of the offence and the broader implications of family violence in sentencing.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the determination of an appropriate sentence in light of the nature of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court needed to consider the severity of the assault and its impact on the victim, as well as any mitigating factors that might influence the sentence. Additionally, the court had to address the broader societal context of family violence and its implications for sentencing.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully weighed the gravity of the offence against the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that, despite the conviction, the defendant did not require a formal criminal record. Instead, the court opted for a sentence that would hold the defendant accountable without the long-term stigma of a criminal conviction. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and 6 months without a formal conviction. This decision balanced the need for justice and rehabilitation with the potential harm of a criminal record.

Orders

Orders of the court

Without conviction, the defendant is ordered to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and 6 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.