R v Ellis - [2014] ACTSC 389

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ellis
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 389
Hearing Date(s):	18 December 2014
DecisionDate:	18 December 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Six month suspended sentence and 18 month good behaviour order imposed for contravene protection order. Fined for other offences.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – contravene protection order – breach of good behaviour order – additional summary offences – trespass – common assault
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 33, 35 Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) s 90 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68D Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Gregory Stephen Ellis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Saikal (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 200 of 2014; SCC 201 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The offender adheres to a plea of guilty to the offence that on 17 May 2014 he contravened a protection order. That offence against s 90(2) of the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) carries a maximum available penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of $70,000 or both.

The Court will deal with related summary offences pursuant to s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The related offences are an offence of trespass, contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) to which a fine of $1,400 attaches and an offence of common assault, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) to which a maximum available penalty of two years' imprisonment attaches.

The plea of guilty to the principal offence was entered on the fifth mention in the Magistrates Court, as was the plea of guilty to the assault offence. The plea of guilty to trespass was entered on the first mention. The pleas of guilty to contravene protection order and assault matters were entered in the context of negotiations between the Crown and the defence. In these circumstances, discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) in the range of 20% to 25% is appropriate.

The offender has spent three days in custody in relation to the principal offence. He was on a good behaviour order imposed by the Magistrates Court on 8 April 2014 when the offence occurred on 17 May 2014. The good behaviour order had been imposed in relation to a similar matter; that is, contravene protection order. That contravention involved the same protection order and the same complainant. I will deal with the offender for that matter pursuant to s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act).

Facts

The offender and the victim had been in a relationship for some years when…

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 Ellis

Details

AGLC: R v Ellis [2014] ACTSC 389
Case: [2014] ACTSC 389
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Ellis, who was charged with multiple offences, including contravening a protection order, breaching a good behaviour order, and committing additional summary offences such as trespass and common assault. The matter was heard in a lower court, and the defendant appealed the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions. This involved determining the severity and nature of the contravention of the protection order, the breach of the good behaviour order, and the additional summary offences. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, including the deterrent effect, the defendant's culpability, and the need for rehabilitation.

The court found that the defendant's actions warranted a substantial penalty. It imposed a six-month suspended sentence for the contravention of the protection order, accompanied by an 18-month good behaviour order. Additionally, the defendant was fined for the other summary offences. The court considered the totality of the defendant's actions, the impact on the victim, and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

The court ordered the defendant to serve a six-month suspended sentence and comply with an 18-month good behaviour order for the contravention of the protection order. The defendant was also fined for the additional summary offences. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing punitive measures with the potential for rehabilitation and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Six month suspended sentence and 18 month good behaviour order imposed for contravene protection order. Fined for other offences.

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.