Police v Roulston (a pseudonym) - [2023] ACTMC 57

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Roulston (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2023] ACTMC 57
Hearing Date:	6 December 2023
Decision Date:	19 December 2023
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See [87] – [88]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle – Family Violence – Conviction.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 ss 6, 7, 10(2), 17, 33(1)(a), 33(1)(za), 33(1)(w), 33(1)(m), 33(1)(j), 33(1)(k) & (I), 35, 35A, 36, 36(3)
Cases Cited:	Kourpanidis v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 11 Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288 DPP v Gale [2023] ACTSC 297 R v Peric (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 387 R v Day (No 2) [2022] ASCTSC 352 DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115 Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159 R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
Parties:	John Edgar Campbell (Informant) John Roulston (a pseudonym) ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Woodhouse ( Defendant)
File Number:	CC 8670 of 2023 CC 8674 of 2023 CC 8674 of 2023

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Introduction

1․On 6 December 2023, I found the Defendant guilty of the following offences:
(a)CC 8670 of 2023: Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years; and
(b)CC 8674 of 2023: Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle a person. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years.

2․Prior to trial, the Defendant pleaded guilty to charge CC 8671 of 2023: Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Again, the maximum penalty for this offence is seven years.
3․I note that the Defendant gave his consent to the matters being disposed of summarily.
4․The matter came before me on 19 December 2023 for a sentencing hearing. Mr Woodhouse appeared for the Defendant. Mr Brown appeared on behalf of the DPP. At the sentencing hearing I received into evidence:
(a)A Victim Impact Statement prepared by the complainant, admitted as Exhibit 1;
(b)A Court Duty Report dated 18 December 2023, admitted as Exhibit 2;
(c)A bundle of documents entitled ‘Offender’s Sentence Bundle’, admitted as Exhibit 3; and
(d)A document produced by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, admitted as Exhibit 4.

5․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 – s 33(1)(a)

Facts

6․In my decision of 6 December 2023, I made a number of findings relevant to the Defendant’s guilt which are also relevant to the sentencing exercise I am required to undertake.
7․The relevant facts are:
(a)on the morning of 30 August 2022, at around 7.30am, the Defendant disclosed to the complainant, whilst they were in their bedroom, that he had had…

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 Roulston (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Police v Roulston (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTMC 57
Case: [2023] ACTMC 57
Decision Date: 19 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Roulston, the defendant faced charges related to an aggravated assault that caused actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The incident involved the defendant using force on a family member, leading to a conviction for aggravated assault. The specifics of the assault included actions that amounted to choking, suffocating, and strangling the victim, which the court found to be particularly severe due to the family violence context.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing framework for the crime of aggravated assault, especially considering the aggravating factor of family violence. The court had to determine the severity of the assault and its impact on the victim, as well as consider mitigating factors presented by the defence. Additionally, the court needed to ensure the sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court noted the seriousness of the assault, highlighting the use of force that caused significant harm to the victim. The court emphasised the importance of addressing family violence, which it deemed to be a critical aggravating factor. The sentencing also took into account the defendant's background, including prior criminal history and personal circumstances, but found that these did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the offence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that was intended to balance punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders included a custodial sentence for the defendant, with specific terms regarding the duration and conditions of imprisonment. The court also made orders for the defendant to participate in rehabilitation programs aimed at addressing the underlying issues of family violence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [87] – [88]

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.