CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – NOMINATED TERM – s 302 of the Crimes Act – whether the Court would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment if the accused had not been acquitted – what the nominated term of sentence would be if the accused had been found guilty – approach taken with respect to nominated term – objective and subjective seriousness of offences
On 13 March 2020 Stephen Anthony Griffiths (the accused) was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment on four counts by special verdict after a trial by judge alone: see R v Griffiths [2020] ACTSC 51. The offences to which these counts related were as follows:
(a) Aggravated burglary (offensive weapon) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC2019/7408). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine, or both.
(b) Unlawful confinement of John Parker contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC2019/7409). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.
(c) Threat to kill John Parker being reckless as to whether John Parker would fear that the threat would be carried out contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act (CC2019/7410). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.
(d) Dishonestly appropriate property, namely car…
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 Griffiths (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Griffiths (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 118
Case
[2020] ACTSC 118
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved the accused, Griffiths, and the prosecution. The dispute was centred around the sentencing that should have been imposed had Griffiths been found guilty, following his acquittal on criminal charges. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence in accordance with section 302 of the Crimes Act, specifically addressing the nominated term of imprisonment. The central issue was whether the court would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment if Griffiths had not been acquitted, and if so, what the nominated term of such a sentence would be. This involved a consideration of both the objective and subjective seriousness of the offences.
The court considered the gravity of the offences that Griffiths was acquitted of, analysing both the objective severity of the crimes and the subjective factors pertinent to Griffiths' case. The court assessed the potential sentence by examining the nature of the crimes, the circumstances surrounding them, and Griffiths' background and culpability. The objective seriousness was determined by comparing the offences with similar crimes and the penalties typically imposed. The subjective seriousness took into account Griffiths' personal circumstances, including his criminal history, remorse, and other mitigating or aggravating factors. The court balanced these considerations to arrive at a sentence that reflected both the nature of the offences and Griffiths' individual situation.
Following its analysis, the court concluded that had Griffiths been found guilty, it would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The nominated term was determined to be a specific duration, reflecting the objective and subjective seriousness of the offences. The court detailed its reasoning, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes and appropriate for Griffiths' circumstances. The final orders specified the nominated term of imprisonment that would have applied, providing clarity on the sentence that the court deemed just in the hypothetical scenario of a guilty verdict.