R v Bowman
[2017] ACTSC 208
•25 July 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Bowman |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 208 |
Hearing Dates: | 26 May and 25 July 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 25 July 2017 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [10] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – excessive defence – limited criminal history – remorse expressed – willingness to participate in restorative justice – victim declined – good prospects for rehabilitation – conviction recorded – Good Behaviour Order imposed. |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Melissa Bowman (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms E Beljic (Crown) Mr J Stewart (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 205 of 2016 |
BURNS J:
Melissa Bowman, on 23 May 2017 you were arraigned on an indictment dated 13 October 2016 alleging that on 10 November 2014 you committed offences of aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. You pleaded not guilty to those charges and they then proceeded to trial. On 25 May 2017, the jury found you not guilty of the charge of aggravated robbery but guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I note that the maximum penalty for the offence is five years imprisonment.
I am satisfied on that on 10 November 2014, you were a passenger in the rear of a car driven by your then partner, UM. The front seat passenger was Victor Slifkas. You were 18 years old and had been in a relationship with UM since you were about 15. You have a young child from that relationship. The relationship was a violent one on the part of UM, with him making you drink alcohol to excess with him and also to smoke cannabis with him.
On 10 November 2014, you were intoxicated. In the car with you was your younger brother. UM stopped the car beside the victim and engaged him in conversation. He and Mr Slifkas then grabbed the victim, assaulted him and stole his mobile phone.
I am satisfied that in the dark conditions at the scene and because of your level of intoxication, you believed that the victim was attacking UM. There had been no discussion of any plan to commit a robbery by UM or Mr Slifkas while you were in the car travelling to that scene. You got out of the vehicle and hit the victim to the back of his head with a bottle, saying words to the effect, "Let go of my boyfriend, you cunt." The victim fell to the ground and you then hit him again to the head with the bottle. At some point during the process, the bottle broke. You and the others then left the scene.
I am satisfied that the jury's verdict of guilty with regard to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was based upon them being satisfied that what you did in striking the victim with the bottle, particularly when he was on the ground, constituted excessive defence of UM. As a result of the attack, the victim sustained a gash to the back of his head and problems with his back. Not surprisingly, he also suffered emotional and psychological trauma which led to him ceasing his employment. It is unclear to what extent your involvement resulted in the back injury which the victim sustained.
I note that you have a limited criminal history [redacted for legal reasons], but not involving any offences of violence. You have ceased your relationship with UM and you now rarely consume alcohol. You no longer use cannabis. You have plans to work in the aged care industry, although a conviction for this offence may preclude you from working in that area. It is, however, not certain that this will be the case. I am satisfied that you enjoy a supportive family and that you are currently focused on being a good mother for your son.
You are not entitled to any leniency for a plea of guilty with respect to this matter. You did not fully accept the extent of your actions in the course of the trial, or indeed, in the sentencing proceedings until the very end. I am satisfied that in part that was because your memory of the relevant events was impaired due to your intoxication on the evening in question. You have, nevertheless, expressed remorse for your actions subsequently, and you expressed a willingness to participate in a restorative justice conference with the victim, although that was not possible because the victim declined to participate.
I am satisfied that you have good prospects for rehabilitation. Indeed, you have already commenced that process. While there are many strong subjective features involved in this matter, the offence was a serious one. A not insignificant injury was occasioned to the victim, being the head gash. Also, one blow at least was struck while the victim was on the ground.
When the matter came before me in May, Mr Stewart who then appeared for you submitted that I should proceed without recording a conviction. I have given very serious consideration to that submission, but ultimately, I am not persuaded that a conviction should not be recorded. In my opinion, the circumstances to which I have referred, relating to the objective seriousness of the offence, require a conviction to be recorded. I take into account the authorities which were provided to me this morning.
Sentence
You will be convicted. There will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months with a condition that you accept the supervision of the Director-General of ACT Corrective Services for that period of 12 months or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer.
| I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns. Associate: Date: 24 August 2017 |
0
0
0