R v Hallam - [2021] ACTSC 141

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hallam
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 141
Hearing Date:	2 February, 19 May 2021
DecisionDate:	2 July 2021
Before:	Burns ACJ
Decision:	See [49]–[55]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – discharge firearm at building – unauthorised use prohibited firearm – attempt conceal evidence – cultivate cannabis plant – pleas of guilty –where victim had pre-existing health condition – consideration of moral culpability where wrongly led to believe an assault had occurred – consideration of intentionality of discharge of firearm – consideration of ADHD and Specific Learning Disorder – where lack of relevant criminal history in recent years
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Benjamin Darrell Hallam (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Naidu (Crown) F Purnell SC (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 239 of 2020; SCC 240 of 2020

Burns ACJ:

Benjamin Hallam, on 21 October 2020 in the ACT Magistrates Court, you entered a plea of guilty to one charge alleging that on 30 May 2020 you recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Meli Tukuca (CC 2020/8810), an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 13 years' imprisonment. You were subsequently committed for sentence to this Court.

On 21 October 2020 you also entered pleas of guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court to four offences:

(a)
an offence of discharging a firearm at a building on 30 May 2020

(CC 2020/6658), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
(b)
an offence of unauthorised use of a prohibited firearm on the same date

(CC 2020/7914), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;
(c)
an offence of attempting to conceal evidence on 30 May 2020

(CC 2020/7917), carrying a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, a fine of 700 penalty units, or both;
(d)an offence of cultivating cannabis plants (CC 2020/7916), carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment.

These last four charges were transferred to this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) as related offences. It is now my responsibility to impose sentence for these offences.

The facts

A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered at the sentence hearing. I will not recite that Agreed Statement of Facts. The following summary will be sufficient.

On the afternoon of 30 May 2020, you attended a party at an address in Dunlop in the ACT. Also at the party was your partner, Isabella Denis and a friend of yours, Paul Fredrickson. All three of you consumed alcohol and were moderately to heavily affected by the alcohol that you had consumed. During the party, Ms Denis sought to argue with you, causing you to withdraw to the garage of the premises with Mr Fredrickson. This angered Ms Denis who left the party to visit a friend who resided at 72 [redacted].

At about 8:15pm that evening the victim…

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 Hallam

Details

AGLC: R v Hallam [2021] ACTSC 141
Case: [2021] ACTSC 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the offender, Benjamin Hallam, was sentenced for multiple offences committed on 30 May 2020. Hallam pleaded guilty to charges of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, discharging a firearm at a building, unauthorised use of a prohibited firearm, attempting to conceal evidence, and cultivating cannabis plants. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for each offence, considering factors such as the offender's moral culpability, his history of offending, and the impact on the victims.

The court found that Hallam's actions were highly reckless, particularly in discharging a loaded shotgun in a residential area, which resulted in serious injury to the victim. The offender's belief that the victims had assaulted his partner did not mitigate his culpability. Hallam had a history of prior offences, but he had not been involved in similar crimes for approximately 20 years prior to this incident. The court also considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his struggles with education, substance use, and mental health issues. Despite these factors, the court held that Hallam's moral culpability was high, and he was remorseful.

Given the severity of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct, the court determined that an immediate term of imprisonment was necessary. The sentences for the offences of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and discharging a firearm at a building were to run concurrently, as were the sentences for the other offences. The court imposed a total sentence of four years and five months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and five months.

Orders