THE QUEEN v DANIEL LEWIS BUDA-KAA
[2013] ACTCA 46 (15 November 2013)
APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – whether head sentence on each count was manifestly inadequate – whether non-parole period manifestly inadequate – issue of concurrency – whether too much weight given to respondent’s mental illness – whether lack of violence was a mitigating factor – whether digital as opposed to penile penetration was a mitigating factor – sentencing judge correct to consider conduct of respondent and mental health of respondent in determining culpability – no error on part of sentencing judge that would justify intervention – sentences not manifestly inadequate – appeal dismissed.
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33(1)(m)
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) 244 CLR 638
R v Chatfield [2012] ACTCA 32
R v Buda-Kaa (Sentencing remarks, SCC 281 of 2011, 30 November 2012)
R v King [2008] ACTCA 12
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 59 - 2012
No. SCC 281 of 2011
Judges: Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 15 November 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 59 - 2012
) No. SCC 281 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND: DANIEL LEWIS BUDA-KAA
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ
Place: Canberra
Date: 6 August 2013
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 59 - 2012
) No. SCC 281 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
)
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND: DANIEL LEWIS BUDA-KAA
Respondent
ORDER
Judges: Penfold and North JJ and Nield AJ
Place: Canberra
Date: 15 November 2013
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
On 24 July 2012 the respondent, Daniel Lewis Buda-Kaa, was found guilty by a jury of:
(a) on 3 May 2011, engaging the complainant, Ms JW, in sexual intercourse, that is, penetrating her vagina with a finger, without her consent and being reckless as to whether she was consenting to sexual intercourse;
(b) on 3 May 2011 committing an act of indecency upon the complainant, that is, touching her on her right breast, without her consent and being reckless as to whether she was consenting to the act; and
(c) on 3 May 2011 committing an act of indecency upon the complainant, that is, trying to touch her genitalia, without her consent and being reckless to whether she was consenting to the act.
On 30 November 2012 Burns J sentenced the respondent for the offences as follows:
(a) the offence of sexual intercourse without consent: imprisonment for 3 years from 24 April 2012 to 23 April 2015;
(b) the offence of…
Continue reading R v Buda-Kaa
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Buda-Kaa [2013] ACTCA 46
- Case
- [2013] ACTCA 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in giving too much weight to the respondent's mental illness, whether the lack of violence and the nature of the penetration were appropriately considered as mitigating factors, and ultimately, whether the imposed sentences were so inadequate as to be manifestly unjust and warranting appellate intervention.
The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the sentencing judge's decision, finding no error that would justify intervention. The Court held that the sentencing judge was correct to consider both the respondent's conduct and his mental health in determining culpability. The Court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced all relevant factors, including the mitigating circumstances presented.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is dismissed.
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.