R v Hanson

[2018] ACTSC 181

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hanson

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 181

Hearing Date:

18 June 2018

DecisionDate:

19 June 2018

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [49]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – forcible confinement – history of illicit drug use  – dysfunctional upbringing – significant criminal history – plea of guilty to charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm – found guilty by jury of forcible confinement – sentencing purposes – consideration of rehabilitation – custodial sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1990 (ACT), ss 24, 34

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR

Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1
R v Avery [2018] ACTSC 64
R v Ngata and Massey (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 4 October 2011)
R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389
Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65

Singh v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 17

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Nathan Hanson (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Fernandez (Crown)

D Berents (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Elringtons Lawyers (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 291 of 2017

SCC 292 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. The offender pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  The facts in relation to that offence were in dispute.  He was also found guilty by a jury of unlawful confinement of Lawrence Forshaw.

1. The maximum penalty for forcible confinement contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1990 (ACT) is 10 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act is imprisonment for five years.

Facts

1. The facts that I find are based upon the evidence given in the trial.  Those facts must be consistent with the verdict of not guilty returned by the jury in relation to the charges against Josephine Timbrell which were joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm and joint commission forcible confinement: see Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; 209 CLR 1 at [14].

1. There remains much unexplained about the context in which the offences occurred.  There are strong indications of the association of Mr Hanson, Ms Timbrell and Mr Forshaw with unlawful drug use or sale activities but nothing sufficient to permit the making of findings of fact beyond reasonable doubt.  The matters indicative of drug use or sale are the otherwise unexplained comings and goings in the early hours of the morning from Ms Timbrell’s house; the presence of a detailed closed-circuit television (CCTV) system at Ms Timbrell’s house which not only recorded comings and goings from the house but was also displayed on the television in the living room; the presence at times during the night of a member of the Rebels Motorcycle Gang; the fact that at the time the victim, Mr Forshaw, was a heroin user and…