Hildebrand v Woodbridge - [2021] ACTSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Hildebrand v Woodbridge
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 327
Hearing Date:	13 December 2021
DecisionDate:	14 December 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [66]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against sentence – appeal by way of rehearing – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – sentence imposed not manifestly excessive – magistrate did not err in failing to make an intensive correction order – magistrate did not place undue reliance on victim impact statements – appeal dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Subpoena issued for purpose of appeal – where appellant sought to admit further evidence based on documents obtained by subpoena – no reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence before the magistrate – undesirability of parties failing to adduce all relevant evidence at first instance – further evidence not admitted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 10(3), 11, 33, pt. 3.2 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 64, 65, 66 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 214
Cases Cited:	Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5 Dang v Li [2021] ACTSC 179; 16 ACTLR 143 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 Samani v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 48 Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Parties:	Trai Hildebrand (Appellant) Grace Woodbridge (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel K Archer (Appellant) K McCann (Respondent)
Solicitors Hugo Law Group (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 26 of 2021
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 2 August 2021 Case Title: Woodbridge v Hildebrand Court File Numbers: CC2021/2838 CC2021/1823 CC2021/3036

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 18 May 2021, the appellant pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)CC2021/2838: assault occasioning actual bodily harm;
(b)CC2021/1823: minor theft; and
(c)CC2021/3036: using a carriage service to menace or harass.

Each of those offences had been committed on 11 February 2021.

On 2 August 2021, the appellant was sentenced by a magistrate. The sentences imposed were as follows:

(a)assault occasioning actual bodily harm: four months’ imprisonment suspended after two months with a 12-month good behaviour order and nine months of supervision;
(b)minor theft: $1000 fine; and
(c)using a carriage service to harass: $1000 fine.

In summary, the circumstances of the offending were as follows.

At about 9:45pm on 11 February 2021, the appellant attended the unit complex of his ex-partner who I will refer to as S. At the time, she and the victim of the offending were walking through the car park of the unit complex. The appellant, who was armed with a 24-inch wrench, approached the victim, waved the wrench around and yelled at him. He then rushed towards the victim and began striking him with the wrench. He struck the victim three or four times. S eventually wrestled the wrench from his…

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 Hildebrand v Woodbridge

Details

AGLC: Hildebrand v Woodbridge [2021] ACTSC 327
Case: [2021] ACTSC 327
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hildebrand v Woodbridge [2021] ACTSC 327 was brought by the appellant against the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate had erred in not considering an intensive corrections order (ICO). The appellant also submitted that the magistrate had improperly relied on victim impact statements. The appeal was dismissed.The magistrate had considered the appellant's age and lack of criminal history but had also considered the gravity of the offending and the purposes of sentencing. The magistrate had no basis for making an ICO as there were no criminogenic issues that needed to be addressed. Finally, the magistrate had not relied on the victim impact statements in any way which would constitute error. The appellant had sought to adduce further evidence in the form of hospital records. The court found that there was no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce this evidence at the first instance.

Orders