R v Crawford - [2019] ACTSC 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Crawford
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 8
Hearing Date:	31 January 2019
DecisionDate:	1 February 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm
Legislation:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20
Cases	Osborne v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 260 R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 125 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Tiarni Crawford (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms R Khazma (Crown) Mr G Mansfield (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW / ACT) Ltd (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 303 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 3 December 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr Nicholas Smith on 17 February 2018.

This is an offence contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 13 years’ imprisonment or, for an aggravated offence, 15 years’ imprisonment. The offence involved what is commonly known as a ‘glassing’ assault. On 17 February 2018, the victim, Mr Smith, was involved in an altercation with the offender’s partner, Mr Williams. Mr Williams had somehow come to be on the ground.

Motivated by alcoholic consumption, and putting aside any semblance of common sense, the offender intervened in the situation and hit the victim on the left side of his face with a glass cup. The glass broke and the victim suffered serious injury. The attack is plainly visible on the CCTV footage that was tendered (Exhibit B).

The injuries were concentrated around Mr Smith’s left eye. He has suffered permanent damage to his eyesight which has resulted from a ruptured globe and leakage of the vitreous gel from within his eye. He also suffered scarring to his face. He has required four operations and has so far not regained complete vision in his left eye. He may never regain full vision and will require further surgery, in particular for the removal of a cataract.

In addition, the cuts to his face required repair and he now has the appearance of a drooping eye. I have seen the photographs of the injury and of the scarring that remains. Fortunately the scar has faded to some degree.

I have also read the victim impact statement prepared by Mr Smith. In his statement he describes the many effects that he has endured as a result of and since the attack. Besides the physical injuries he has succumbed to depression and an incapacity to re-join the social and sporting life he enjoyed before the attack. The treatment has been very expensive as well as inconvenient both to him and his parents. He has been forced to take a great deal of time off work and his plans to…

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 Crawford

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford [2019] ACTSC 8
Case: [2019] ACTSC 8
Decision Date: 1 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crawford, the appellant was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on another person. The incident arose out of a confrontation between the appellant and the victim, which led to the victim suffering serious injuries. The matter proceeded to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant challenged both his conviction and the severity of his sentence. The appeal centred on the application of legal principles in relation to recklessness and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles of recklessness in assessing the appellant's actions and whether the sentence was excessive. The court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident, the appellant's state of mind at the time of the offence, and the appropriate legal framework for determining recklessness. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the proportionality and fairness of the sentence in light of the appellant's criminal history and the gravity of the offence.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal principles of recklessness in assessing the appellant's conduct. The court emphasised that recklessness involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the circumstances. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant's actions amounted to such a deviation, justifying the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that while the offence was serious, the sentence was not excessive. The court considered the appellant's background and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, concluding that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [23]

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.