R v Beniamini (No 3)

[2017] ACTSC 80

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Beniamini (No 3)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 80

DecisionDate:

10 April 2017

Before:

Refshauge ACJ

Decision:

1.   In paragraph [82] point 9 of the reasons in R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32, the word “nine” be omitted and “eight” substituted.

2.   A Corrigendum to those reasons be published.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Correction of reasons for sentence – no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30

Brennand v Hartung (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 149

Millard v The Queen (No 2) [2016] ACTCA 41

R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32

R v Kelly (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 64

The Owners of Units Plan No 932 v Marhaba [2017] ACTSC 13

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Adam Beniamini (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 36 of 2016

REFSHAUGE ACJ:

1. Adam Beniamini has a significant criminal history. Since 2010, the majority of the offences he has committed have been offences of violence.

1. It is not necessary in this decision to recount his history, other than to say that he has breached a number of Good Behaviour Orders by committing further offences, as well as committing further offences while on bail.

1. On 23 February 2017, I sentenced Mr Beniamini for a number of offences. The sentencing involved re-sentencing following his breach of a Good Behaviour Order,

   
   

   re-sentencing him following a successful appeal against sentencing for certain offences originally dealt with in the ACT Magistrates Court, and sentencing him for further offences.

1. A complication in the nevertheless complex sentencing was that he had committed and had been sentenced by a different Magistrate for offences committed after he had committed the offences the sentencing for which was the subject of the successful appeal from the Magistrates Court. Indeed, at the time of committing those further offences, he was on bail in association with a Deferred Sentence Order made in relation to the earlier Magistrates Court offences.

1. When upholding the appeal, I addressed the need in sentencing Mr Beniamini to have regard to the fact that, though for the later committed offences, Mr Beniamini was then serving that earlier imposed sentence. This required consideration of the principle of totality.  See Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30 at [178]-[189].

1. In re-sentencing Mr Beniamini, I took into account that earlier sentence, deciding that the principle of totality required some concurrency between it and the sentence to be imposed by me.  See R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32.

1. In sentencing Mr Beniamini, I said in R v Beniamini (No 2) at [82] point 9, after setting out the sentences and the respective dates of commencement which recognised relevant concurrency and cumulation:

That is a total of three years and two months imprisonment. Together with the sentences imposed by the Chief Magistrate, that is imprisonment for four…