Legal Research
Cases
R v Amosa

R v Amosa

Case [2015] ACTSC 34 4 February 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Amosa
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 34
Hearing Date(s):	4 February 2015
DecisionDate:	4 February 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and 10 months
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – offences against the person – cause grievous bodily harm − early guilty plea
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35
Cases Cited:	Carberry v R [2013] ACTCA 20 DPP v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154 DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 R v Byrne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 3 February 2014) R v Carberry (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 19 October 2012) R v Laipato (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010) R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013) R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mark Amosa (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms Katrina Mackenzie (Crown) Mr James Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mark Fleming Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 263 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Offence

The offender adhered to a plea of guilty to the offence that on 21 April 2014 he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on the victim. The offence is contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and it carries a maximum available penalty of 13 years’ imprisonment.

The plea of guilty was entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It entitles the offender to a discount of 25% on sentence. The discount relates primarily to the utilitarian value of the plea. I also take into account the other considerations in s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act), including the fact that the Crown case was relatively strong.

The offender has spent no time in custody apart from half a day following his arrest.

Background

At about 4.00 am on 21 April 2014, the offender was at the Academy nightclub in central Canberra. Also present at the club was the victim and a group of his friends including K. At about 4.10 am, Academy security staff directed K to leave the nightclub. K walked towards the exit. He stopped near the exit to speak to the security officer as he waited for his friends, including the victim. At that time, the offender walked up behind K and pushed him, in effect pushing him up the stairs towards the ground level exit. K assumed that the offender was a security staff member. At the ground floor exit from the nightclub, closed circuit television (CCTV) footage shows the victim’s group exiting the premises and also shows the offender. It shows K beginning to speak to a security staffer.…

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 R v Amosa

Details

AGLC: R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34
Case: [2015] ACTSC 34
Decision Date: 4 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Amosa was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, Amosa, was charged with causing grievous bodily harm to another person. Amosa pleaded guilty at an early stage in the proceedings. The prosecution accepted the plea and the matter proceeded to sentencing. Amosa was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and 10 months. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the fact that Amosa had entered an early guilty plea.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the level of culpability of the offender, and the principles of sentencing. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea. The prosecution submitted that the offence was serious and that a significant custodial sentence was appropriate. The defence submitted that the offence was not the most serious and that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, noting that the victim had suffered significant injuries as a result of Amosa’s actions. The court also considered the level of culpability of Amosa, noting that the offence was premeditated and that Amosa had shown no remorse. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea. The court held that an early guilty plea was a significant mitigating factor and that it warranted a reduction in sentence. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to deter the offender and others from committing similar offences. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate, but that the early guilty plea warranted a reduction in sentence. The court sentenced Amosa to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and 10 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and 10 months

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34

Most Recent Citation

R v Islam [2015] ACTSC 99

Cases citing this decision · 22 of 22 shown

R v Kelly (No 2)
[2021] ACTSC 253 Para 1

…ch might predispose them to good behaviour and promote a crime free lifestyle, all dependant on such offenders avoiding further offending: see R v RB [2015] ACTSC 34 at [1].…
Ngata and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2021] AATA 376 Para 7

…l for even graver injury to fall within the scope of this offence. It is similar to but somewhat less serious than the circumstances in R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. The common assault on OU was a violent blow to the head. There was some verbal provocation of the offender. While it was a blow to the head, there was n…
R v Lyons (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 358

…Grimshaw v Mann [2013] ACTSC 189 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Carmody (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 60 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 R…
R v Ngata
[2020] ACTSC 9 Para 1

…ial for even graver injury to fall within the scope of this offence. It is similar to, but somewhat less serious than, the circumstances in R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 ( Amosa ).…
R v Butters
[2019] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…ACTSC 261 ( Bandy ); R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 ( Hidic ); R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 ( Myles ); R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 ( Sharma ); R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34.…
R v Waghorn
[2019] ACTSC 72 Para 1

…of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34.…
R v Yuen
[2019] ACTSC 70

…228 CLR 357 Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 41 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 R v Ainsworth [2003] QCA 468;1 Qd R 679 R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Azar [2004] NSWSC 797 R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261 R v Bartlett [2016] ACTSC 390 R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32 R v Burgess [2017] ACTSC 249…
R v Merritt
[2019] ACTSC 23 Para 1

…ous bodily harm sustained by the victim: see R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 ( Hidic ), R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194, R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34.…
R v Bandy
[2018] ACTSC 261

…R 565 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 6 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Bartlett [2016] ACTSC 390 R v Bartlett (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 51 R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32 R v Burgess [2017] ACT…
R v Sikoulabot
[2018] ACTSC 217 Para 1

…of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. On this question, the prosecution referred to the nature of the decisive blow being a kick to the jaw of the victim whilst he was in a vulnerable posi…
R v LT
[2017] ACTSC 343

…R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330…
R v Burgess
[2017] ACTSC 249 Para 1

…offender (and the associated degree of recklessness) and the nature of the grievous bodily harm to the victim: R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34; R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330; R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241.…
R v Dunn
[2017] ACTSC 227 Para 1

…ngaged, indicating its level of moral culpability, as well as the nature and extent of the grievous bodily harm suffered by the victim: see R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 at [20]; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 at [17].…
R v Myles
[2017] ACTSC 194 Para 1

…nd the associated degree of recklessness) and the nature of the grievous bodily harm to the victim: R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 ( Sharma ); R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 ( Amosa ); R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 ( Smith ); R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 ( EL ).…
R v Bartlett
[2016] ACTSC 390 Para 1

…This is sometimes described as “the conduct and moral culpability” as in R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 at [21] and R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406 at [13]. While culpability is important, I reject the suggestion that it should be described as “moral culpability”. The criminal courts are not courts of morality but courts…
R v Carmody
[2016] ACTSC 382 Para 1

…ening injuries ( R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 at [9]) and, in particular, injuries to the head, a particularly vulnerable part of the body ( R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 at [21]; R v Seretin at [9]). This was not a case of such serious injuries. The consequences of such injuries are also relevant considerations ( R v…
R v Sharma
[2016] ACTSC 180

…R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 20 R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 R v Neish [2013] ACTSC, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013 R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223…
R v EL
[2016] ACTSC 241 Para 1

…The prosecution cited the matter of R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 as authority for the proposition that the objective seriousness of an offence of this nature:…
R v Williams
[2015] ACTSC 406 Para 1

…The matter of R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 was cited by the prosecutor for the proposition (at [20]) that there are two aspects to the objective seriousness of offences of this kind, one being the offender's conduct and his moral culpability for that conduct, and the other being the nature of the harm suffered by the…
R v Freeman-Quay (No 3)
[2015] ACTSC 284 Para 1

…hich the offender engaged and the associated moral culpability, and the nature of the grievous bodily harm that was suffered by the victim: R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 at [20].…
R v Islam
[2015] ACTSC 99 Para 1

…In R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34, there was also a lesser degree of violence with the victim sustaining a fractured skull as a result of a single punch. The offender was 25 years old and had previous convictions for violence. He was assessed as at a low risk of reoffending. He entered an early plea of guilty and was g…
R v Hidic
[2017] ACTSC 307 Para 1

…elative seriousness of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 ( Myles ); R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34; R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330; R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241.…

View all 22 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v Pumpa
[2014] ACTSC 223 Para 1

…012), R v Byrne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 3 February 2014), Carberry v R [2013] ACTCA 20, R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223, R v Laipato (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010), R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of th…
R v Loveridge
[2014] NSWCCA 120 Para 1

…The New South Wales decision in R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 is significant because of its discussion of general principles. However, it is of little assistance with regard to an appropriate sentencing range because it concerned a one punch injury where a death resulted. The matter was prosecuted as manslaughter…
Carberry v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 20 Para 1

…tory, Burns J, 19 October 2012), R v Byrne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 3 February 2014), Carberry v R [2013] ACTCA 20, R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223, R v Laipato (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010), R v Neish (Unr…
McCullough v R
[2009] NSWCCA 94 Para 1

…ry, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010), R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013), McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94, DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153 and DPP v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154. These decisions provided the Court with some assistance as to the usual sentencing r…
DPP v Lawrence
[2004] VSCA 154 Para 1

…Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013), McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94, DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153 and DPP v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154. These decisions provided the Court with some assistance as to the usual sentencing range.…
DPP v Zullo
[2004] VSCA 153 Para 1

…0), R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013), McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94, DPP v Zullo [2004] VSCA 153 and DPP v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154. These decisions provided the Court with some assistance as to the usual sentencing range.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
33, 35, 7 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
20 2 mentions (from Para 1)