R v Collier - [2022] ACTSC 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Collier
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 18
Hearing Date(s):	7 February 2022
DecisionDate:	7 February 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – offence committed in custody
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 64, 72
Cases Cited:	R v Bedford [2019] ACTSC 282 R v Collier (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 177
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Norman Collier ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 268 of 2021

Elkaim J

On 16 November 2021, Mr Collier pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 13 years’ imprisonment.

As at 4 October 2020 the offender was an inmate at the local prison, the AMC. He was on remand pending sentencing for various matters. This has occurred. He was also at the time subject to a 12-month Good Behaviour Order which has since been cancelled by Loukas-Karlsson J (R v Collier (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 177). Her Honour sets out the background to her orders as well as some subjective factors described in a Pre-Sentence Report dated 14 July 2021.

The offender is in prison now because of sentences imposed by Magistrate Theakston on 2 September 2021. He received a head sentence of two years and one month which will expire on 31 January 2023. A non-parole period was due to expire on 19 April 2022. However because of the effects of the relevant legislation (in particular ss 64 and 72) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), the offender has lost the ability to seek parole after 19 April this year.

The parties agreed, from a technical point of view, that the effect of the above legislation is that the sentence that I impose should commence on 1 February 2023 and should not include a non-parole period. However the sentence may be suspended after a particular period of time.

In respect of the current offence, on 4 October 2020 the offender assaulted another inmate who allegedly owed another person some money. The other person was also a creditor of the offender and had persuaded, perhaps somewhat forcefully, the offender to put pressure on the victim in respect of the debt.

I viewed the CCTV footage of the beginning of the incident. Clearly the action was premeditated although perhaps not sophisticated. After following the victim into his cell he hit him on his head so that he fell to the ground where the assault continued. He used his feet to continue the assault on the victim’s head. He then poured boiling water over the victim. Before leaving he threatened the victim about reporting…

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 Collier

Details

AGLC: R v Collier [2022] ACTSC 18
Case: [2022] ACTSC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory presided over the case of R v Collier, in which Norman Collier pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offence occurred while Collier was in custody at the AMC on remand pending sentencing for other matters. The maximum penalty for this offence is 13 years’ imprisonment. Collier was also subject to a Good Behaviour Order, which was later cancelled by Loukas-Karlsson J in R v Collier (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 177.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing legislation. The court had to balance the severity of the offence, the need for public deterrence, and the possibility of rehabilitation for the offender. The Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) played a significant role in shaping the court's approach, particularly in terms of setting non-parole periods for offences committed in custody.

Elkaim J, in delivering the judgment, acknowledged the brutality of the offence, which involved Collier premeditating and executing an assault on another inmate, resulting in severe injuries. The court noted that the offender's background, including early exposure to violence and substance abuse, contributed to his criminal behaviour. Despite this, the court emphasised the need for severe punishment for offences committed in prison, given the vulnerable position of inmates. The judge took into account the offender's guilty plea and his potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding on a sentence of three years imprisonment, to be suspended after two years, subject to certain conditions. This approach aimed to balance the requirements of justice and public deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation.

Orders