R v Cook - [2022] ACTSC 17

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Cook
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 17
Hearing Date(s):	7 February 2022
DecisionDate:	7 February 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – grievous bodily harm – significant subject features – good behaviour order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) s 64 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Trinity Cook ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee ( Crown) S McLaughlin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 161 of 2021

Elkaim J

On 11 November 2021, Mr Cook pleaded guilty to the offence of being knowingly concerned in another person causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) by virtue of s 45 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.

The three persons involved, the two offenders and the victim, were all inmates at the local prison, the Alexander Maconochie Centre. On 28 March 2020 the offender and the co-offender (Mr Gardner) entered the victim’s prison cell and closed the door.

Mr Gardner then struck the victim (Mr Zanatta) a number of times to his head and face. Mr Gardner then poured boiling water over the victim’s upper body resulting in serious burns. The burns necessitated transfer to an interstate burns facility.

The offender watched on. He had known an assault was going to take place. To his credit the offender did intervene to bring the assault to an end and he gave the victim a towel before departing.

The Crown Tender Bundle includes a detailed Statement of Facts. The above is a summary of those facts.

Taking into account the nature of the offending, in particular the pouring of boiling water causing serious and lasting injury, and the pre-arranging of the offence, I consider the offending to be about medium in the range of objective seriousness. Had the offender’s role not been passive my assessment would have been higher.

General deterrence plays a significant part in offences committed in custody. Prisoners who are victims of assault have no avenue of escape and are forced to live in the proximity of their attackers. Persons considering carrying out assaults in prison must know that they are going to be dealt with severely.

Mr Gardner has not yet been sentenced so questions of parity do not arise.

Normally a nonparole period would be set if the term of imprisonment imposed was in excess of 12 months. However by reason of s 64 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) a nonparole period may not be set.

The offender was born in 1987. He has a criminal history in the ACT and a significant criminal record in New South Wales. The latter record includes violent offending and possession of drugs.

The offender was in…

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 Cook

Details

AGLC: R v Cook [2022] ACTSC 17
Case: [2022] ACTSC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Trinity Cook was convicted for being knowingly concerned in another person causing grievous bodily harm. The court heard that Cook and his co-offender had assaulted the victim in prison, resulting in severe injuries. The Crown and the defence agreed on a suspended sentence with a Good Behaviour Order, taking into account Cook's plea of guilty, his cooperation with authorities, and his significant subjective factors, including mental disabilities and a history of drug use.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate sentence for Cook, considering the nature of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the offender's personal circumstances. The court had to weigh the severity of the assault against Cook's mitigating factors, including his cooperation with the authorities and his vulnerable mental state. The court also had to consider the appropriate conditions for a Good Behaviour Order to ensure the offender's rehabilitation and to prevent reoffending.

The court determined that the offence was of medium seriousness, warranting a sentence of 24 months, reduced to 18 months due to the offender's plea of guilty and his cooperation. Elkaim J concluded that the rehabilitation of the offender was paramount and ordered that the sentence be suspended with immediate effect. The court imposed a Good Behaviour Order requiring Cook to accept supervision by ACT Corrective Services and to attend educational and counselling programs as directed. The court aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the offender's potential for rehabilitation.

The court made the following orders: Cook is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, which is suspended with immediate effect. He must enter into a Good Behaviour Order for 18 months, subject to conditions including supervision by ACT Corrective Services and attendance at directed educational and counselling programs.

Orders