MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Police v Hughes |
Citation: | [2024] ACTMC 9 |
Hearing Dates: | 3 June 2024 |
Decision Date: | 3 June 2024 |
Before: | Magistrate Temby |
Decision: | See [78] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – aggravated common assault – family violence – sentence of imprisonment |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 ss 33, 33(1)(za), 34B, |
Cases Cited: | R v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 517 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 |
Parties: | Luke Jarman (Informant 1st series) Chisanto Lesmana Mulyadi (Informant 2nd & 3rd series) Garry Hughes ( Defendant) |
Representation: | Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service ( Defendant) |
File Numbers: | CC 1711 of 2024 CC 6829 of 2023 CC 1751 of 2024 CC 1752 of 2024 |
MAGISTRATE TEMBY:
Introduction
1․The Defendant appeared before me today to be sentenced in relation to four offences – two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two of aggravated common assault. All offences are aggravated by being committed in a family violence context, having been committed against the Defendant’s ex-partner.
2․The maximum penalties for the offences charged are:
(a)seven years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm offences; and
(b)three years’ imprisonment for the aggravated common assault offences.
3․I note that the Defendant gave his consent for all charges to be dealt with summarily.
4․In considering the matter, I note that:
(a)I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any fact which might be relied on in aggravation of the offence for which the Defendant is charged; and
(b)I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of any facts which I take into account in mitigation of the offences or in mitigation of the sentence.
Nature and circumstances of offence
5․The Defendant was found guilty following two hearings that were held in relation to the offences. I presided over proceedings 6829 of 2023, and 1751 and 1752 of 2024, and Special Magistrate Richter presided over proceedings 1711 of 2024.
Objective seriousness - considerations
6․In general terms, the objective seriousness of each of the assault offences is to be assessed having regard to:
(a)the nature of the attack and the surrounding circumstances; and
(b)the harm suffered by the complainant.
6829 of 2023, 1751 and 1752 of 2024
Facts
7․The facts relevant to the sentencing exercise for proceedings 6829 of 2023, and 1751 and 1752 of 2024, are as follows:
(a)at around 6.00 to 6.30 pm on 7 July 2023, the Defendant and the complainant were at an address on Newman-Morris Circuit in Oxley. With them in the house were their four children, aged four and…
Continue reading Police v Hughes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Hughes [2024] ACTMC 9
- Case
- [2024] ACTMC 9
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine the appropriate legal framework to apply in sentencing, particularly given the nature of the offences as family violence. A key issue was the balancing of the defendant's culpability against the need to provide a deterrent and to uphold community standards. Another consideration was the applicability of mitigating factors such as the defendant's background and remorse. The court was also tasked with deciding the proportionality of the sentence, considering the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the need for a punitive response. It found that the offences were indeed aggravated by the context of family violence, and that the defendant's actions had caused significant harm. The court considered various sentencing principles, including general deterrence, specific deterrence, and denunciation. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court concluded that a term of imprisonment was warranted. The defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect potential future victims.
The final orders included the defendant's imprisonment for the specified term, as well as any ancillary orders deemed necessary by the court. These orders were made in accordance with the legal principles and considerations outlined in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [78]
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.