R v Beniamini - [2014] ACTSC 40

THE QUEEN v ADAM BENIAMINI;
ADAM BENIAMINI v FELICITY STORMAN, KARA CHAPMAN
AND MONIQUE FACCIN
[2014] ACTSC 40 (22 January 2014)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Excessive or Inadequate Damages – Re-sentencing following the appeal being upheld

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgement and Punishment – Re-sentencing due to breach of good behaviour order

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 12

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 403

Beniamini v Stormon [2014] ACTSC 2
R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314
R v Beniamini (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 9 December 2010)
Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCA 65 of 2013
No. SCC 165 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 22 January 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 65 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ADAM BENIAMINI
v

FELICITY STORMAN, KARA CHAPMAN AND MONIQUE FACCIN

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  22 January 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

On the charge of damage property, Adam Beniamini is sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 1 August 2012.

On the charge of common assault, Adam Beniamini is sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 1 September 2012.

The sentence is suspended, on 1 February 2014, for two years.

Adam Beniamini is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for two years.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 165 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
v
ADAM BENIAMINI

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  22 January 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The good behaviour order made on 9 December 2010 is cancelled.

Adam Beniamini is sentenced to imprisonment for four months and two weeks, to commence on 1 February 2014 and end on 13 June 2014.

The whole of that period is set to be served by periodic detention, the first period to commence on 7 February 2010, when Adam Beniamini is to report, by 7:00 pm, to the Symonston Periodic Detention Centre, and the last period to commence on 6 June 2014.

Violence is a serious problem for a civilised community. It is aggravated when facilitated by excessive alcohol use. It has become a significant matter of public controversy. While the concerns of the community are important and the prevalence of the offence is relevant to the punishment to be imposed, it cannot require a court to impose a sentence that is disproportionate to the offending behaviour.

In this context, I must sentence Adam Beniamini in the following circumstances.

On 16 March 2012, he assaulted a young woman and damaged property at her residence in order to gain entry. He was sentenced to imprisonment for these offences on 28 August 2013, but I have upheld an appeal against the sentence imposed in…

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 Beniamini

Details

AGLC: R v Beniamini [2014] ACTSC 40
Case: [2014] ACTSC 40
Decision Date: 22 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Beniamini involved the defendant, Adam Beniamini, who was convicted of damaging property and common assault. The dispute arose following Beniamini's appeal against his initial sentencing, which was considered inadequate by the court. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, where the court was required to re-sentence Beniamini following the appeal.

The court had to determine whether the original sentences were appropriate and whether a re-sentencing was warranted due to the breach of a good behaviour order. The legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the initial sentences and whether the new sentences should reflect the breach of the good behaviour order. The court considered the nature of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court found that the initial sentences were inadequate given the seriousness of the offences and the breach of the good behaviour order. The court acknowledged the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes and deter future offending. As such, the court imposed a three-month imprisonment for the property damage charge and a twelve-month imprisonment for the common assault charge, with both sentences suspended for two years. Additionally, Beniamini was required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations for the same period.

The final orders mandated that Beniamini serve three months’ imprisonment for damaging property, to commence on 1 August 2012, and twelve months’ imprisonment for common assault, to commence on 1 September 2012. Both sentences were suspended on 1 February 2014 for two years. Additionally, Beniamini was required to comply with the good behaviour obligations for the same period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On the charge of damage property, Adam Beniamini is sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 1 August 2012.

2. On the charge of common assault, Adam Beniamini is sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 1 September 2012.

3. The sentence is suspended, on 1 February 2014, for two years.

4. Adam Beniamini is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for two years.

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.