Jude Middlemiss v Ali Bilal - [2022] ACTMC 17

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Jude Middlemiss v Ali Bilal
Citation:	[2022] ACTMC 17
Hearing Date(s):	21 July 2022
DecisionDate:	2 August 2022
Before:	Chief Magistrate Walker
Decision:	[80] – [86]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment –Use carriage service to threaten serious harm – Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend Sentence – sentencing federal offenders – relevant commonwealth sentencing considerations – utilitarian benefit of early guilty plea
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 (‘Crimes Act’), s 4J(3), 20AB Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (‘Criminal Code’), s 474.15(2), 474.17(10)
Cases Cited:	Bae v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 75 Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] HCA 1; (2012) 244 CLR 638 Director of Public Prosecutions v Ka-Hung Ip [2005] ACTCA (‘Ip’) Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 MRM v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 195 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 (‘Pearce’) R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1 R v Grey (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 43 R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; (2016) 11 ACTLR 215 R v Mak [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550 R v Turnbull [2018] NSWDC 142 R v Woods [2021] NSWDC 264 Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75; (2022) 365 FLR 69 Turner v Raiser [2021] ACTSC 21
Parties:	ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecutor) Ali Bilal (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Beth Morrisroe (Prosecution) Margaret Jones SC (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC 12087 of 2021 CC 12088 of 2021 CC 12090 of 2021 CC 12093 of 2021 CC 12096 of 2021

CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:

I am to sentence the offender, Mr Ali Hassan Bilal today in relation to two counts of using a carriage service to threaten to cause serious harm, contrary to section 474.15(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’). It is an offence which, on conviction, carries up to seven years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to section 4J(3)(b) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘Crimes Act’), this court’s jurisdictional limit is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine of up to 120 penalty units.

I am also to sentence the offender for three counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence contrary to section 474.17(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 which carries on conviction up to three years’ imprisonment and as to which the jurisdictional limit is 12 months or 60 penalty units.

The offences relate to 19 January 2021, 25 January 2021, 26 June 2021 and 12 August 2021. For the purpose of considering sentence, I have had the statement of facts in respect to each of those occasions. I have listened to audio, an excerpt of the call on 19 January 2021. I have read the offender’s criminal history dated 21 June 2022…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jude Middlemiss v Ali Bilal and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] ACTMC 17
Decision Date: 2 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jude Middlemiss brought a case against Ali Bilal in a court of law, where the central issue was Bilal's use of a carriage service to threaten serious harm and to menace, harass, or offend Middlemiss. The court was tasked with addressing the legal implications of these actions, including the appropriate sentencing for Bilal’s offences. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the judge, Justice Bromberg, was responsible for determining the outcome.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of the Commonwealth Criminal Code in relation to the use of carriage services for threatening and harassing conduct. The court needed to consider the nature and severity of the offences, as well as the principles of sentencing that should be applied. One of the key considerations was the potential for a discount in sentence due to Bilal's early guilty plea, as well as the broader societal benefits of such a plea. The court also needed to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against the rehabilitative potential of the sentence.

Justice Bromberg examined the circumstances of the case, including the content and impact of the messages sent by Bilal to Middlemiss. The judge assessed the seriousness of the offences, noting the significant distress and harm caused to Middlemiss. The court also considered the utilitarian benefits of an early guilty plea, which included the efficient use of court resources and the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, Justice Bromberg determined that the appropriate sentence for Bilal would reflect both the need for punishment and the opportunity for reform. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment would be necessary, taking into account the mitigating factor of the early guilty plea.

The court ordered that Ali Bilal be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a discount applied due to his early guilty plea. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of the term and any additional penalties, were outlined in the judgment. This decision provided clarity on the legal standards applicable to offences involving the use of carriage services to threaten and harass, and it served as a guide for similar future cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

[80] – [86]

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.