R v Bailey

Case [2019] ACTSC 102

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Bailey

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 102

Hearing Date:

29 January 2019; 18 April 2019

DecisionDate:

18 April 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [85].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – common assault – plea of guilty – intensive corrections order

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 26

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 11, 33

Cases Cited:

Daniels v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 35

DPP (Vic) v Dalgleish [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80

Pattalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 171

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 Carmody(No 3) [2017] ACTSC 60

R v Cranfield [2017] ACTSC 171

R v Gillett [2019] ACTSC 30

R v Groom [1998] VSCA 146; 2 VR 159

R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307

R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414

R v Laipato (unreported Nield AJ, 16 September 2010)

R v Lattouf (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Mahoney ACJ, Sully J and Adams AJ, 12 December 1996)

R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; 243 A Crim R 31

R v LT [2017] ACTSC 343

R v McBride [2017] ACTSC 102

R v McLean [2014] NSWDC 104

R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48

R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 244

R v Neish (Unreported, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013)

R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299

R v Pallier [2017] ACTSC 112

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223

R v Rappel [2017] ACTSC 38

R v RC (Unreported, Burns J, 19 October 2012)

R v Rehinberger [2016] ACTSC 14

R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45

R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180

R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217

R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330

R v Sullivan [2018] NSWDC 366

R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406

Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Wheelan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 147; 228 A Crim R 1

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Brendan Douglas Bailey (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Williamson/ Mr P Dixon (Crown)

Ms K Musgrove (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT DPP (Crown)

Sneddon Hall & Gallop (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 263 of 2018; SCC 264 of 2018

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. On 17 October 2018, Brendan Douglas Bailey (the offender) pleaded guilty to:

(a) recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary…

Continue reading R v Bailey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bailey [2019] ACTSC 102
Case
[2019] ACTSC 102
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Bailey, who faced charges related to inflicting grievous bodily harm by recklessly causing injury to another person. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Bailey's actions, which included a plea of guilty to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, as well as a charge of common assault. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty given the circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the sentencing of Bailey, who admitted to causing harm to another person in a reckless manner. The court needed to consider the relevant legislative provisions, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. It was also necessary to weigh the potential effectiveness of different sentencing options, including an intensive corrections order, in ensuring that Bailey was held accountable for his actions while also considering the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence.

In determining the sentence, the court carefully evaluated the evidence and submissions presented. It acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, which involved causing significant injury to another person. However, the court also considered mitigating factors, such as Bailey's guilty plea and any evidence of remorse. Ultimately, the court decided that an intensive corrections order was the most appropriate sentence, as it would provide an opportunity for Bailey to address the underlying issues that led to his criminal behaviour while also holding him accountable for his actions. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for an intensive corrections order to prevent future offending.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of an intensive corrections order on Bailey, along with other conditions as specified in the judgment. This decision reflected the court's consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the mitigating factors presented, and the potential for rehabilitation through an intensive corrections order.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [85].

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.