R v Dillon - [2018] ACTSC 164

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Dillon
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 164
Hearing Date:	9 March 2018
DecisionDate:	4 June 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [76]-[78]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – pleas of guilty to two series of offences – first series of offences – by an unlawful or negligent act or omission, cause grievous bodily harm – two counts of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – two counts of intentional and unlawful threat to kill – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – act of indecency without consent – other offences to be taken into account Second series of offences – Murder – circumstances of the offence – two counts of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – multiple counts of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – two counts of choke rendering insensible or unconscious – act endangering health – two counts of intentional and unlawful threat to kill – other offences to be taken into account – caused death by assaults, and at the time intended to cause serious injury – assessment of level of culpability – whether case falls within the worst case category – limited criminal history – report of consultant forensic psychiatrist – victim impact statements – whether the plea of guilty could justify a lesser sentence than life imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 28(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35(4)
Cases Cited:	R v Rappel [2017] ACTSC 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Graham Stuart Dillon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J White with Ms S Saikal-Skea (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 186 of 2016; SCC 195 of 2017; SCC 196 of 2017

BURNS J

Graham Stuart Dillon, you have entered pleas of guilty to two series of offences. The first series chronologically occurred between 31 May 2011 and 31 December 2013. These offences are found in an indictment on Supreme Court file SCC 195 of 2017. The second, and more serious, series of offences occurred between 7 December 2014 and 16 February 2016. These offences are found on an indictment on Supreme Court file SCC 186 of 2016. In addition, you ask that I take into account in sentencing you with respect to some of these offences, other offences contained in a number of lists of additional offences. I will refer to these in greater detail in the course of these sentencing remarks and in so doing I will identify them by reference to the charge number allocated in the Magistrates Court.

I propose dealing with the two series of offences in chronological order.

SCC 195 of 2017

Count 1 on the indictment of 13 February 2018 on file SCC 195 of 2017 alleges that between 31 May 2011 and 31 October 2011 you, by an unlawful or negligent act or omission, caused grievous bodily harm 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 Dillon

Details

AGLC: R v Dillon [2018] ACTSC 164
Case: [2018] ACTSC 164
Decision Date: 4 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dillon, the defendant pleaded guilty to a series of serious criminal offences, which included grievous bodily harm, threats to kill, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, indecency without consent, and ultimately murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant state, where the court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant who had shown remorse and entered a plea of guilty. The court was required to consider the severity and nature of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offences, and the impact on the victims, among other factors.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the assessment of the defendant's culpability and whether the case warranted a sentence falling within the worst-case category. The court also needed to weigh the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's limited criminal history, the consultant forensic psychiatrist's report, and the victim impact statements, against the gravity of the crimes committed. A key issue was whether the plea of guilty could justify a sentence that was less severe than life imprisonment.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the level of culpability, and the mitigating factors presented. It took into account the limited criminal history of the defendant, the remorse shown, and the psychiatric evaluation, as well as the impact on the victims. After careful deliberation, the court found that the case did not fall within the worst-case category for sentencing. The court determined that the plea of guilty warranted a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. The final orders of the court, detailed from paragraph 76 to 78, reflect the court's comprehensive assessment and the sentence imposed on the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [76]-[78]

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.