Justin Anthony Firth v Stephen Frederick Reid - [2017] NTLC 22

CITATION:Justin Anthony Firth v Stephen Frederick Reid [2017] NTLC 022
PARTIES:Justin Anthony FIRTH
v
Stephen Frederick REID

TITLE OF COURT:  Local Court
JURISDICTION:  Criminal
FILE NO(s):21632628
DELIVERED ON:  29 August & 26 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Darwin
HEARING DATE(s):  10, 11, 16 and 29 August 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Greg Macdonald
CATCHWORDS:

Assault – Part 3 Division 6A Sentencing Act - ss.78C and 78DI - Mandatory imprisonment for violent offence - “substantially corresponding” - “exceptional circumstances”.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:Mr G. O’Brien-Hartcher
Defendant:Mr H. Riley
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:NTLAC
Defendant:DPP
Judgment category classification:        B
Judgment ID number:  [2017] NTLC 022
Number of paragraphs:  20

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
No. 21632628
BETWEEN:

Justin Anthony FIRTH

Complainant

AND:

Stephen Frederick REID

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 29 August & 26 September 2017)
Judge Macdonald:

The defendant Steven Frederick Reid (“Defendant”) was charged by Information that on 16 February 2016 he unlawfully assaulted Scott Olive, who suffered harm, contrary to s 188 of the Criminal Code (NT) (“Code”).
On 10 August 2017 the Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, with the Crown then adducing evidence from Mr Olive, two other witnesses being Messrs. Michael Pearce and Scott Barlow, and investigating members of NT Police.
On the basis of the evidence placed before the court, on 11 August 2017 I found the offence proven, so recorded a conviction. Submissions on legal issues which then arose were heard on 16 August 2017.
The issues are, first, whether a conviction in January 2007 of “Stalking or intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm” contrary to s 562AB of the then Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is an offence “substantially corresponding” with s 189 of the Code, being “Unlawful stalking”. Section 78C read with Scheduled 2 of the Sentencing Act prescribes an offence against s 189 to be a “violent offence”, with the definition then proceeding to also include certain offences from other jurisdictions, on the basis of that descriptor.
Secondly, whether “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Division 6A of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act exist, so as to exempt the Defendant from the mandatory sentence Parliament has prescribed for the offence convicted of.
In relation to the Crown’s submission that the NSW offence is a substantially corresponding offence, the Defendant submitted a material difference between the then s 562AB and the current s 189 was determinative against such a finding. Namely, that s 562AB(4) makes clear that actual fear of “physical or mental harm” on the part of an alleged victim was not an element of that offence. Conversely, s 189 requires that a defendant’s conduct “actually did have that result”.
The then s 562AB is in simpler terms than s 189, but the gravamen of each offence is intention to cause “fear [of] physical or mental harm”. Although proof of actual fear of harm is not an element…

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 Justin Anthony Firth v Stephen Frederick Reid

Details

AGLC: Justin Anthony Firth v Stephen Frederick Reid [2017] NTLC 22
Case: [2017] NTLC 22
Decision Date: 26 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justin Anthony Firth initiated legal proceedings against Stephen Frederick Reid following an incident of assault. The dispute was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether Reid's sentencing under the Sentencing Act, specifically sections 78C and 78DI, warranted mandatory imprisonment due to the violent nature of the offence, and whether any "exceptional circumstances" existed that could mitigate this requirement.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the assault to determine whether Reid's actions were "substantially corresponding" to the violent offence criteria. It was necessary to assess the severity and nature of the assault to decide if the mandatory imprisonment applied. The court also considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed that could justify a departure from the mandatory imprisonment requirement, such as Reid's personal circumstances or the nature of the offence itself. After careful deliberation, the court found that the assault met the criteria for mandatory imprisonment under the relevant sections of the Sentencing Act, but did not find any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from this requirement.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Stephen Frederick Reid be subject to mandatory imprisonment for the violent offence committed against Justin Anthony Firth. The decision was based on the severity of the assault and the statutory obligations under sections 78C and 78DI of the Sentencing Act. The court's ruling did not identify any exceptional circumstances that would alter the mandatory imprisonment sentence.

Orders