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 craniotomy to relieve pressure on the brain. Her testing identified a severe impairment of auditory-verbal and visual memory. She found very slow processing speed and a poor attention and concentration span. She said that he will have difficulty managing his own affairs and that he will require sustained psychological treatment. In short the victim is now a severely brain damaged person in his 40’s who will have to negotiate the rest of his life with the disabilities that the offender inflicted upon him.

1. The victim was a first-time prisoner in the AMC. The offender was a seasoned inmate in correctional institutions. He took advantage of his cell-mate’s position and beat him ferociously.

1. I assess the objective seriousness of the attack as well above medium.

1. The offender was born in 1999. He is currently 20 years of age. He obviously had a difficult upbringing. The pre-sentence report says there is a very high chance of reoffending. The report does apparently have some errors in it. For example he has a good relationship with his younger brother who is disabled and for whom he provides significant assistance.

1. This offender, although now only 20, already has a long criminal history, including for like offences. He has been in custody in relation to this charge for 9 months and 14 days. It is also necessary for me to deal with him for a breach of suspended sentence orders arising from the decision of the Chief Justice in AA v McDevitt [2017] ACTSC 342. Under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) the offender must either be resentenced or the outstanding sentences of imprisonment must be imposed. I think the latter course is most appropriate, although I will need to be careful when sentencing for the current offence to allow for some concurrency so that there is not an overwhelmingly crushing sentence.

1. Two references have been tendered on behalf of the offender. The first is from his grandfather, a retired police officer. This reference concentrates on the reasons that the offender was in prison. He may well have been distressed if he was wrongly arrested. As already observed, I do not see that it mitigates his assault upon the victim.

1. The next, and more important reference, is from his mother. She describes the difficult upbringing that the offender experienced, in particular having to witness his father’s aggression and abuse. She says the offender made a turn for the better and was in stable employment until a “false allegation put him into AMC”. This is the subject of the grandfather’s reference. The offender is described by his mother as “a very caring and loving person and is dedicated to and loves his family and friends. Brad can be relied upon and is a hard worker and I know he will find employment.” These are all very admirable sentiments but the fact remains that he unnecessarily and viciously beat up another man who now has permanent brain damage.

1. If his mother’s assessment is correct, then rehabilitation of the offender must be taken into account. He is still very young and is hopefully capable of putting a violent life behind him.

1. Cases like R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227, R v Islam [2015] ACTSC 99 and R v Yuen (Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 31 May 2013) have made it very clear that offences of this type are to be treated very seriously. Each case is different and relies on its own facts, but what these authorities show is that significant terms of imprisonment will inevitably flow. This is particularly because of the need for general deterrence, to show the prison population that its behaviour must accord with civilised norms.

1. Sections 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) set out the objects and principles of sentencing. The various considerations under s 33 are also important. Section 10 says that a person should not be imprisoned except as a last resort. There is no alternative here.

1. I make the following orders:

Sentences for the breach offences 

(a)For the offence of act endangering life (CH16/418) the offender is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment commencing on 1 January 2019 and ending on 31 March 2019;

(b)For the offence of act endangering life (CH16/419) the offender is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing on 1 January 2019 and ending on 30 June 2019;

(c)For the offence of act endangering life (CH16/420) the offender is sentenced to 7 months imprisonment commencing on 1 February 2019 and ending on 31 August 2019

(d)For the offence of act endangering life (CC16/446) the offender is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing on 1 March 2019 and ending on 30 November 2019;

(e)For the offence of common assault (CH16/599) the offender is sentenced to 4 months imprisonment commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 31 October 2019

(f)For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CH16/596) the offender is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing on 1 July 2019 and ending on 31 December 2019

(g)For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CH16/597) the offender is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing on 1 May 2019 and ending on 31 January 2020;

(h)For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CH16/598) the offender is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing on 1 May 2019 and ending on 30 April 2020

Sentence for the fresh offence

(i)For the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm (SCCCAN1935/2019) the offender is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment (reduced from 6 years for the plea of guilty) commencing on 1 January 2020 and ending on 31 December 2024.   

(j)The total period of imprisonment is 6 years. The non-parole period is 3 years and 7 months. The offender will be eligible for parole on 31 July 2022

I certify that the preceding sixteen [16] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of His Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 14 October 2019