R v Freeman-Quay (No 3) - [2015] ACTSC 284

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Freeman-Quay (No 3)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 284
Hearing Date:	4 September 2015
DecisionDate:	4 September 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Total sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, suspended after nine months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for 2 years. Fined $750.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – offences against the person – causing grievous bodily harm – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – common assault – general deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 24, 25, 26, 49 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7
Cases Cited:	R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Barbaro (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Penfold J, 17 June 2010) R v Byrne [2015] ACTSC 113 R v Freeman-Quay (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 262 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013) R v Obradovic (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 23 December 2013) R v Srikandakumar (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT Murrell CJ, 8 April 2014)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Levi Freeman-Quay (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 5 of 2014; SCC 51 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The offender pleaded not guilty to the charge that on 21 September 2013 he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Matthew Pridham, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). By operation of s 49 of the Crimes Act the offender was charged with the alternative offence of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act. The offender pleaded guilty to an associated offence that on 21 September 2013 he assaulted Ray Reynolds and occasioned him actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act. A charge of common assault on Ronnie Burt on 21 September 2013, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, was transferred from the Magistrates Court to be dealt with at the same time.

The trial on the charges of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and common assault proceeded by way of a judge alone trial in May and July 2015. On 31 August 2015, I returned a verdict of not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr Pridham but guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Pridham. I also found that the offender was guilty of common assault on Mr Burt: R v Freeman-Quay (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 262

The offender is to be sentenced for three matters:

(a)Causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Pridham. The maximum available penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
(b)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds. The maximum available penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
(c)Common assault on Mr Burt. The maximum available penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

Facts

The factual…

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 Freeman-Quay (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Freeman-Quay (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 284
Case: [2015] ACTSC 284
Decision Date: 4 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Freeman-Quay (No 3) involved the defendant, Freeman-Quay, who was convicted of multiple offences including causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and common assault. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction to impose penalties for these criminal offences. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence that should be imposed on Freeman-Quay given the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.

The court had to determine the appropriate weight to be given to various sentencing factors, including the gravity of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation of the offender. It was necessary to consider the cumulative effect of the offences and the impact on the victims, alongside any mitigating factors that could be presented. The balance between punishment and deterrence, as well as the potential for rehabilitation, were key considerations in arriving at a just outcome.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the circumstances of each offence, the harm caused to the victims, and the character and background of Freeman-Quay. The court concluded that while the offences were serious, there were mitigating factors that warranted a sentence that included a period of imprisonment followed by a period of supervision and rehabilitation. The court ultimately imposed a total sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, which was suspended after nine months on the condition that Freeman-Quay entered into a good behaviour order for two years and paid a fine of $750.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, suspended after nine months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order for 2 years. Fined $750.

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.