R v Booth
[2021] ACTSC 224
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Booth |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 224 |
Hearing Dates: | 31 August and 1 September 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 1 September 2021 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [11] and [16] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – where accused was acquitted at jury trial – transfer charges of common assault – guilty on one charge – offence at low end of the spectrum – nominal punishment appropriate in the circumstances – charge dismissed |
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312 R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Stancy Booth ( Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (31 August 2021) and S Jerome (1 September 2021) ( Crown) K Musgrove ( Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) McKenna Taylor ( Accused) | |
File Number: | SCC 182 of 2019 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
Stancy Booth, who is known as Bonnie Booth, was acquitted of a count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). That was put both on the basis of joint commission as well as commission by her alone. There were two transfer charges of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). One of those charges is of an assault on a person who I will refer to as LD (CC2019/1359), the other on Desi Connors (CC2019/1361).
In short, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted LD but not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she assaulted Desi Connors. In these reasons I will refer to people by their first names. This is how they were referred to in the trial. I do not intend any disrespect to them by referring to them in this informal way.
Evidence and assessment of witnesses
For a summary of the circumstances leading to the alleged assaults, see R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223.
Desi gave evidence that while they were arguing, Bonnie punched LD in the mouth and he was bleeding.
Desi gave evidence that while she was standing with Deanne and Bonnie, Bonnie punched her in the face. In cross-examination she said that she saw a hand punch LD and assumed it was Bonnie because Bonnie was the only person standing in front of him. Later when she was outside she asked LD who had hit him, and he pointed at Bonnie.
LD said that once he had pushed Tiam Fisher out, Bonnie punched him in the face. Later in the evidence-in-chief interview he pointed to his lip and told police that he did not know if they could still see the mark. He also said that they kept arguing and screaming and that was when Bonnie punched his mum. He did not see where the punch landed from the angle where he was. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he had grabbed the top of Bonnie’s arm and that she raised her hand and it inadvertently connected with his mouth. He disagreed with this.
ND said that LD was outside and that she saw Bonnie point at him and then punch him in the face and he got a blood nose.
It was suggested to ND that Bonnie did not punch LD but that her hand went up backwards and hit LD the face. ND disagreed with that, saying that Bonnie went forward like she meant it.
Counsel for Bonnie pointed to a number of inconsistencies between the overall versions of events that were described by the members of the Connors household. It is true that there were a number of inconsistencies. They are consistent with the events being somewhat chaotic and being recalled a long time after the events.
While I have generally accepted Desi’s version of events of what occurred on that day, I have what I consider to be a reasonable doubt about her being punched in the face by Bonnie because of the fact that there was no contemporaneous record made by Officer Lowrencev when she attended that Bonnie had punched Desi, whereas there was in relation to assaults on MD and LD. Further, there was a lack of detail in LD’s evidence about his observation of his mother being punched. Additionally, the overall picture of the interaction is somewhat unclear, in contrast to the evidence in relation to the punching of LD which appears to be more consistent with LD exiting the building after having removed Tiam and becoming involved in a melee outside.
Self-defence was raised as a defence to the charge relating to LD. That was an additional suggestion beyond the suggestion that Bonnie never came to the house or that Bonnie did come to the house but did not enter the patio. The evidence in support of the third suggestion, namely self-defence, was very slender. There was evidence that after the incident, Coral King had seen a bruise on Bonnie’s arm. The suggestion was put to LD that he had grabbed Bonnie by the top of her left arm. He denied it. I accept his evidence. There was no evidence from other witnesses as to what occurred or that would shed light on Bonnie’s state of mind. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has excluded self-defence. For those reasons the orders of the Court are:
1.On charge (CC2019/1359) the accused is guilty.
2.Charge (CC2019/1361) is dismissed.
[Counsel for Bonnie and the Crown made sentencing submissions.]
Sentence
I found Bonnie guilty of a charge of common assault.
The Crown tendered her criminal history. That includes, most recently, a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm which was dealt with by way of a good behaviour order in 2009. It also includes some old matters from Queensland which, relevantly, include assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst in company and aggravated assault on a female, both dealt with by convictions and very modest fines. The Crown also pointed to the fact that the offending occurred at, or just outside of, the victim’s home and that the victim was 15 years old even if he was six foot tall and quite bulky.
Counsel for Bonnie pointed to her age, she being now 69 years old, her family circumstances, namely that she has six children, 29 grandchildren and nine great‑grandchildren, that she lives with her daughter and her sister and that her sister moved in after having a stroke so that Bonnie could care for her. Counsel for Bonnie also pointed to her health conditions, difficulty with her knees, type 2 diabetes, obesity and past and possibly present difficulties with gallstones. Counsel also pointed to Bonnie’s role within the Aboriginal community, her church and her lack of use of alcohol or illicit substances.
Notwithstanding the previous convictions recorded for similar offending, having regard to the age and minor nature of those convictions, the age of the offender, her health and her family circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a matter which should be dealt with under s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). I have referred to the offender’s character, antecedents, age and health. I consider the offence to be at the low end of the spectrum, notwithstanding the victim and the location where the offending occurred. There are no particular extenuating circumstances in which the offence occurred, but I take it as a spur-of-the-moment and unpremeditated act occurring in somewhat chaotic circumstances. Having had regard to the matters in s 17(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act and the other circumstances in which the offence occurred, to the extent that they are relevant under s 17(4), I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to impose any punishment other than nominal punishment on the offender.
I therefore make the following additional order:
3.I direct that the charge (CC2019/1359) be dismissed under s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act.
| I certify that the preceding sixteen [16] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 30 September 2021 |
0