Legal Research
Cases
R v Curtis

R v Curtis

Case [2013] ACTSC 291 16 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

R v MATTHEW CURTIS
[2013] ACTSC 291 (16 December 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Youthful offenders – Youth is a mitigating factor – Rehabilitation is more important than general deterrence for youthful offenders

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7

Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 219 A Crim R 369
Director of Public Prosecutions v Mourkakos [2007] VSCA 312
Duca v Police (1999) 73 SASR 15
EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17
Hillier v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2009) 198 A Crim R 565
R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123
R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v Ivanisevic (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 1 July 2010)
R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235
R v Oliver (1982) 7 A Crim R 174
R v Meyboom [2001] FCA 861

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 92 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 92 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R
V
MATTHEW CURTIS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  16 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Matthew Curtis be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 1 June 2013.

Matthew Curtis be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 5 June 2013.

That sentence be suspended today for two years.

Matthew Curtis be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years with the following conditions:

(a) a probation condition, that he be subject to the supervision of the Director-General, or her delegate, for two years or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise him determines as appropriate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, and

(b) in particular he obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him as to counselling or treatment for his mental health and for his abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

Violence in our community is a serious matter, because it undermines the security and safety of its members, which they may be expected to enjoy by being part of the community. Domestic violence is particularly serious, as noted in a helpful exploration of the issues by Johnson J in R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 at 192-6; [67]-[88].

Now appearing before me for sentence is Matthew Curtis, who has pleaded guilty to one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is an offence against s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which attracts a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

THE FACTS

Mr Clark and the victim had known each other for some years and commenced a relationship when she moved 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 Curtis

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291
Case: [2013] ACTSC 291
Decision Date: 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Curtis, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate sentence for Matthew Curtis, who was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 1 June 2013. The case arose from an incident where Curtis, along with others, attacked a group of individuals, causing significant injuries to one of the victims. Curtis's defence counsel argued that he was a youthful offender and that his age should be considered a mitigating factor in his sentencing. The prosecution, on the other hand, sought a sentence that would emphasise the importance of general deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the youth of the offender should be considered in the sentencing process, particularly in light of the significant harm caused to the victim. The court needed to balance the principles of general deterrence with the importance of rehabilitation, especially for youthful offenders. This required the court to carefully consider the relevant case law and statutory provisions governing sentencing in such circumstances.

The High Court concluded that Curtis's youth was indeed a significant mitigating factor in his sentencing. The court emphasised that the primary objective of sentencing youthful offenders should be rehabilitation rather than general deterrence. In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as R v Thorp, which underscored the importance of rehabilitation for young offenders. The court also noted the statutory guidance provided by the Sentencing Act, which requires consideration of the offender's age and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that was intended to focus on Curtis's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court ordered that Matthew Curtis be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 1 June 2013, and that the sentence imposed should reflect the principles of rehabilitation and the mitigating factor of his youth. The court also directed that the sentence be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remained appropriate in light of Curtis's progress and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Matthew Curtis be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 1 June 2013.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291

Most Recent Citation

R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 34

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Amy Slaviero v Joshua Nabytowiccz-Cannizzaro
[2021] ACTMC 11 Para 1

…tions is somewhat complicated in this matter. That is particularly so having regard to the defendant’s youth. As Refshauge J observed in R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 at [20-22]:…
ZL v Corey
[2020] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…nce but, by no means, the most serious in the criminal calendar”: R v Wagle (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 160 at [6]. It was also noted that, in R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291 at [28], Refshauge J held that the offence is one where ordinarily a sentence of imprisonment may well be imposed.…
R v Curtis (No 4)
[2018] ACTSC 166 Para 1

…12 months imprisonment, suspended immediately after backdating it to take into account six months and 11 days of pre-sentence custody: see R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291.…
Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson
[2018] ACAT 4

…s cited: Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 B & T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar and the Owners – Units Plan 3324 [2013] ACTSC 291 Chakravarty & Commissioner ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 1 Collector of Customs v Agfa Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Limited…
R v Curtis (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 101 Para 1

…breach of a Good Behaviour Order is Matthew Curtis who was, on 16 December 2013, convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. See R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291.…
R v Curtis (No 2)
[2016] ACTSC 34 Para 1

…enced him to twelve months imprisonment, suspended that day, and made a Good Behaviour Order with a probation condition for two years: see R v Curtis [2013] ACTSC 291.…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 1

…I am prepared to accept that his alcohol use is associated with the circumstances of his early life after his father died. See Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 1022 at 1032; [43]-[44]. I am also prepared to accept that he has moderated his consumption, though it does not appear yet to be at a manageable level. For exa…
EG v The Queen
[2012] ACTCA 17 Para 1

…This approach has been accepted by the Court of Appeal in the Australian Capital Territory in EG v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 17. Accordingly, I consider that rehabilitation in this case is a significant matter.…
Azzopardi v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 372 Para 1

…In Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 219 A Crim R 369, the Court reaffirmed the general principles in R v Mills , noting in particular the relevance of immaturity in an assessment of how to evaluate an offence. The Court acknowledged that the degree of criminality may require the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, j…
Hillier v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2009] NSWCCA 312 Para 1

…ravation, though it is not strictly relevant to the objective seriousness of the offence, but rather to the culpability of Mr Curtis, as explained in Hillier v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2009) 198 A Crim R 565 at 574; [30]. It is also important to avoid any risk of double punishment.…
DPP v Mourkakos
[2007] VSCA 312 Para 1

…These principles have been further considered by subsequent Courts of Appeal in Victoria. In Director of Public Prosecutions v Mourkakos [2007] VSCA 312, Dodds-Streeton JA, with whom Maxwell P and Nettle JA agreed, pointed out that the principles in R v Mills were general principles, and other considerations were…
R v Hamid
[2006] NSWCCA 303 Para 1

…d to enjoy by being part of the community. Domestic violence is particularly serious, as noted in a helpful exploration of the issues by Johnson J in R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 at 192-6; [67]-[88].…
R v Bell
[2005] ACTSC 123 Para 1

…it was committed in the context of a relationship. It could be described as a family violence offence. Of such offences, Higgins CJ said, in R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123 at [30], “[i]t is a pernicious and evil phenomenon”. His Honour continued (at [31]):…
R v Meyboom
[2001] FCA 861 Para 1

…tion needs. In that context, I note the influence of excessive alcohol on the offending. I have regard to the approach to that set out in R v Meyboom [2001] FCA 861 at [52]-[56]; while not, in this case, mitigating of the offending, it is very relevant to rehabilitation, which in the circumstances is an important…
R v Wright
[1998] VSCA 84 Para 1

…dacted for legal reasons] My attention was drawn to the principles set out by Batt JA with whom Phillips CJ and Charles JA agreed in R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235. Those principles require that for youthful offenders rehabilitation is usually more important than general deterrence, especially when retributive p…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
7 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
24 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)