R v Hambesis - [2020] ACTSC 202

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hambesis
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 202
Hearing Date:	27 July 2020
DecisionDate:	28 July 2020
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [34]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – theft – plea of guilty – limited criminal history – suspended sentence – good behaviour order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 308 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 35
Cases Cited:	The Queen v Stacker [2020] ACTCA 34
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Stanley Hambesis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) United Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 339 of 2019

Robinson AJ:

Introduction

Stanley Hambesis, the offender, and a co-offender Sione Tuifua participated in events which occurred on 29 July 2019 whereby Simon Evans was assaulted and had the contents of his wallet and a car stolen at an address at Holt, Australian Capital Territory. Each of the offenders had different parts to play in what transpired on that evening. Mr Tuifua has been sentenced in separate proceedings by Burns J.

On 19 May 2020, the offender pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)Count 1: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2019/8923), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment; and
(b)Count 2: Theft (SCCAN2020/77), contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both.

The plea was entered in consequence of a fresh indictment being agreed between the parties, limiting the offences to be prosecuted against the offender. This was agreed at a criminal case conference on 12 May 2020. The trial of the matter had been set down for 15 June 2020.

The offender has spent no time in custody in relation to these offences.

Facts

In around 2014, the offender met the complainant through their then-partners. Their friendship broke down after the offender separated from his wife in about 2015 or 2016. The complainant believed that the offender blamed him for the breakdown of his marriage.

Shortly before 25 July 2019, the complainant met the co-offender through a friend, Ms Jacobs. The co-offender then sent the complainant a message on Facebook.

Count 1: Assault

Around midnight on Monday 29 July 2020, Ms Jacobs invited the complainant via Facebook message to come to their friend Ms Smith’s house. The complainant and another friend, Ms Jessop, came to the house. Inside were Ms Jacobs, Ms Smith and Ms Reed.

Later, the offenders came to the house. Ms Smith answered the door. The complainant was seated in the living room.

The offender entered the house and saw the complainant. The offender told the complainant words to the effect of “you ruined my marriage”. The offender approached the complainant and began to punch him a number of times…

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 Hambesis

Details

AGLC: R v Hambesis [2020] ACTSC 202
Case: [2020] ACTSC 202
Decision Date: 28 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hambesis involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and theft. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant, Hambesis, admitted to assaulting another individual and stealing property from them. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration the nature of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and other relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had a limited criminal history but had committed serious offences. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the possibility of rehabilitation and the defendant's personal circumstances. In particular, the court needed to consider whether a suspended sentence and a good behaviour order would be sufficient to achieve the objectives of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences committed by the defendant but also recognised his limited criminal history and the fact that he had pleaded guilty. The court determined that a suspended sentence, coupled with a good behaviour order, would be an appropriate way to address the objectives of sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for the defendant to make positive changes in his life. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, along with a good behaviour order, would be suitable for the defendant.

The court's final orders included a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a good behaviour order requiring the defendant to adhere to certain conditions for the duration of the suspension period. The defendant was also ordered to pay reparations to the victim and to attend a rehabilitation program. The court's decision reflects the importance of tailoring sentences to the individual circumstances of the offender, while also considering the broader objectives of the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [34]

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.