Police v Paul Stanik - [2022] ACTMC 2

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Paul Stanik
Citation:	[2022] ACTMC 2
Hearing Date(s):	2 & 18 February 2022
DecisionDate:	18 February 2022
Before:	Magistrate Theakston
Decision:	See [28]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Driving with prescribed drug in oral fluid – contravene protection order – stalking with intent to harass – use carriage service to harass
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 35, s 374 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 474.17(1) Criminal Code 2002, s 360(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 72, s 34 Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), s 43 Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1988 (ACT), s 20
Parties:	Justin Houlahan (Informant) Sandeep Singh (Informant) Caleb Boxx (Informant) Paul Stanik (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel J Melloy (Informant) J Johnson (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutors (Informant) Hugo Law Group (Offender)
File Numbers:	CC 2545/2021 CC 8421/2021 CC 10169-74/2021 CC 10217/2021 CC 10301-2/2021 CC 11524/2021 CC 11526/2021

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Introduction

The offender has pleaded guilty to a number of charges and is being sentenced by me. These are my reasons for sentencing.

I will start by describing the charges, including the agreed facts and the timing of the offender’s pleas of guilty.

First series

Charge

Description

Date

Maximum penalty

CC2545/2021

Drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid (contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1988 (ACT))

6 Mar 21

10 penalty units

The first series involves the single charge of driving with a prescribed drug in oral fluid. The offender is a first offender and was observed driving in Condor on 6 March 2021, just after lunchtime, with deta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his oral fluid. He is a first offender. There were no aggravating features and he entered a late plea of guilty after initially pleading not guilty, but well before the listed hearing date. He claimed he had used two drops of cannabis oil the night before.

Second series

Charge

Description

Date

Maximum penalty

Jurisdictional maximum

CC 8421/2021

Contravene protection order (contrary to s 43(2) of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT)

11 Aug 21

Imprisonment 5 years

Imprisonment 2 years

The second series involves the offender contravening a family violence order. The order was made on 27 July 2021, in favour of his wife and was served on 6 August 2021. It included a condition not to be within 20 metres of his wife. Days later on 11 August 2021, the offender attended the Wanniassa Police Citizens Youth Club where his wife was with four of their children. He approached her from behind and stood three metres behind her. She turned to notice he was there, and he then left. The offender entered a late plea of guilty after an initial plea of not guilty, again well before the listed hearing date. This offending was brief, and opportunistic in nature. There is no evidence of considered planning.

Third series

Charge

Description

Date

Maximum…

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 Police v Paul Stanik

Details

AGLC: Police v Paul Stanik [2022] ACTMC 2
Case: [2022] ACTMC 2
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Paul Stanik, was brought before the court on charges of driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid, contravening a protection order, stalking with intent to harass, and using a carriage service to harass. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The prosecution sought to establish that Mr. Stanik's actions constituted serious breaches of criminal law and warranted appropriate sentencing.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each of the charges, considering their severity and the principles of justice and deterrence. The prosecution argued for a significant penalty, emphasizing the need to protect the community and deter similar offences in the future. The defence, on the other hand, sought a lenient sentence, arguing that Mr. Stanik's actions, while serious, were not indicative of a significant threat to the community and that he had shown remorse.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, found Mr. Stanik guilty on all counts. The court acknowledged the severity of the charges, particularly the use of a carriage service to harass, which it considered a particularly invasive and harmful form of stalking. The court took into account the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. In its judgment, the court imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offences, while also considering Mr. Stanik's personal circumstances and his potential for rehabilitation. The sentences were designed to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of Mr. Stanik's reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [28]

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.

Charge	Description	Date	Maximum penalty
CC2545/2021	Drive with prescribed drug in oral fluid (contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1988 (ACT))	6 Mar 21	10 penalty units