R v Bedford

[2019] ACTSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Bedford

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 282  

Hearing Date:

14 October 2019

DecisionDate:

14 October 2019

Before: 

Decision:

Elkaim J

See paragraph [16]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – plea of guilty –  significant criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110

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

Cases Cited:

AA v McDevitt [2017] ACTSC 342
R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227
R v Islam [2015] ACTSC 99
R v Yuen (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 31 May 2013)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Bradley Bedford (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

L Marino (Crown)

B Dunne (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 118 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

1. On 28 August 2019, the offender was arraigned on an indictment dated 20 June 2019. He pleaded guilty to Count 2, a charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) in full satisfaction of the indictment. The offender had previously indicated a plea of guilty to that charge at a scheduled criminal case conference on 5 August 2019. The offender is entitled to a discount arising from his plea of guilty, which I assess at approximately 20%.

1. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for thirteen years.

1. The offender was remanded in the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) on 30 November 2018. The complainant and the offender commenced sharing a cell on 28 December 2018. They appeared to have had a cordial relationship, and the complainant would often provide food and cigarettes to the offender. 

1. The matter for which the offender was placed into custody in November 2018 did not proceed and, it would appear that the offender probably should not have been in custody at all. This is not a factor of mitigation but, taken together with issues the offender was having in respect of his mental health medication, the frustration that he was experiencing does to some degree place his offending actions into context.

1. On 1 January 2019 the offender and complainant were in their shared cell. An argument broke out between them, first verbal, which later descended into a physical altercation. The fight was one-sided and the victim was severely injured. His injuries included a traumatic brain injury, a left carotid artery dissection, a large laceration which will result in permanent scarring, a fractured nose and a number of other less serious injuries. The victim was hospitalised where he endured a number of complications arising from his injuries.

1. A neuropsychological report on the victim was prepared in May of this year. There is reference to the victim’s “very severe impairment of memory and learning on examination”. The neuropsychologist says that the victim has suffered a severe traumatic brain injury which required a…