Legal Research
Cases
R v Daniel (No 2)

R v Daniel (No 2)

Case [2021] ACTSC 117 15 June 2021

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Intensive Correction Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Daniel (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 117
Hearing Date:	29 April 2021
DecisionDate:	15 June 2021
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 6 months, to be served by way of intensive correction order with a community service work condition and a condition to engage in programs as directed by ACT Corrective Services.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Causing grievous bodily harm – “one punch” attack – assistance in administration of justice through offer to plead guilty to offence ultimately found guilty of – intensive correction order imposed – community service work condition
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 25 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33, 35, 35A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 25E
Cases Cited:	Blackwell v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 93; 81 NSWLR 119 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 LS v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) and Anor [2011] NSWSC 1016 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v Alaragi [2020] ACTSC 77 R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261 R v Bui [2019] ACTSC 366 R v Byrne [2015] ACTSC 113 R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15 R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57 R v Daniel [2021] ACTSC 64 R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338 R v Hansen [2011] SASFC 10; 206 A Crim R 54 R v Harmouche [2015] ACTSC 217 R v Harmouche [2015] ACTSC 381 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105 R v Islam [2011] ACTSC 32 R v Keyes [2016] ACTSC 387 R v Lacey [2020] ACTSC 241 R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 244 R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Price [2015] ACTSC 324 R v Rheinberger (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 307 R v Rheinberger [2016] ACTSC 14 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Smith [2020] ACTSC 277 R v Todkill [2018] ACTSC 182 R v Tonga [2015] ACTSC 365 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Uluikadavu [2020] ACTSC 237 Urlich v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 30 Veen v The Queen(No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Latu [2019] ACTSC 109 Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454 The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
Texts Cited:	Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Bill 2017 New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 11 October 2017
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Zane Daniel (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe (Crown) M Kukulies-Smith (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC…

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 Daniel (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Daniel (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 117
Case: [2021] ACTSC 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Daniel (No 2), the offender was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm following a trial by judge alone. The offender had no prior criminal history. The offender had offered to plead guilty to the offence at an earlier stage in the proceedings, however, the prosecution declined the offer and the matter proceeded to trial. The offender was found not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm but guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months, reduced on account of the offender's offer to plead guilty to the offence for which he was ultimately found guilty. The sentence was to be served by way of an intensive correction order with an additional condition to undertake 500 hours of community service work. The offender was also to be subject to a further additional condition to engage in programs as required by ACT Corrective Services to address his criminogenic needs.

Orders