R v Bandy

Case [2018] ACTSC 261


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Bandy

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 261

Hearing Dates:

14 May 2018 ; 27 August 2018

DecisionDate:

14 September 2018

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [112].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – intensive corrections order assessment – where offender at a ‘crossroads’

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20

Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW) s 22

Cases Cited:

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

Hillier v DPP [2009] NSWCCA 312; 198 A Crim 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] ACTSC 249
R v Carmody (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 60
R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57
R v Cranfield [2017] ACTSC 171
R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338
R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227
R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241
R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307
R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310
R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105
R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414
R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 24
R v Laipato (Unreported, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010)
R v LT [2017] ACTSC 343
R v McBride [2017] ACTSC 102
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 125

R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 244
R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194
R v Neish (Unreported, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013)
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; 5 A Crim R 394
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 Rheinberger [2016] ACTSC 14
R v Rheinberger (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 307
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 Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9
R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406
Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Jeb Lee Bandy (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr T Hickey (Crown)

Mr M Kukulies-Smith (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Continue reading R v Bandy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261
Case
[2018] ACTSC 261
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bandy, the defendant faced charges related to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard and determined by the court, which had to assess the appropriate sentence and determine whether an intensive corrections order would be suitable. The defendant's situation was considered to be at a pivotal point, warranting a detailed analysis of the potential benefits of such an order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether an intensive corrections order would be an appropriate and effective means of addressing the defendant's offending behaviour and promoting rehabilitation. The court needed to weigh the potential for rehabilitation against the severity of the offence and the need for punishment and deterrence. Additionally, the court had to consider the specific circumstances of the defendant's life and whether such an order would provide a meaningful opportunity for change.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the nature of the offence, the defendant's background, and the potential for rehabilitation through an intensive corrections order. The court recognised that the defendant was at a significant juncture in their life, and that such an order could provide a structured environment conducive to change. The court also considered the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for the sentence to reflect the community's expectations regarding appropriate punishment and deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that an intensive corrections order would be an appropriate sentence, given the potential for rehabilitation and the specific circumstances of the case.

The court made a final order that the defendant be subject to an intensive corrections order, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the judgment. This decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the defendant's situation and the potential for the order to facilitate meaningful rehabilitation while also serving the interests of justice and the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [112].

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.