R v HC

[2018] ACTSC 49

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

R v HC

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 49

Hearing Date:

26 February 2018

DecisionDate:

26 February 2018

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [13]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – common assault – pleas of guilty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10

Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

HC (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms R Christensen (Crown)

Mr P Edmonds (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Paul Edmonds Solicitors (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 16 of 2017; SCC 17 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

1. On 6 September 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to two charges of common assault. These matters would normally be dealt with in the Magistrates Court. However, for reasons that I will not go into, these matters are being dealt with by the Supreme Court.

1. The offender is entitled to a discount for his pleas of guilty and expressions of remorse. I assess the appropriate discount at 20%.

1. The two charges of common assault are domestic violence offences. These type of offences are appalling. Actions of violence against a partner or family member must be condemned. Any person who commits these offences should expect to be sentenced to a period of full-time custody.

1. The facts behind the assaults are set out in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit A). I do not see the need to set them out in detail here. 

1. Sections 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) set out the purposes and objects of sentencing. I also note that section 10 states that a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed if no other penalty is appropriate. As I have already stated, imprisonment would normally be warranted in a case of this type. The offender’s criminal record is also relevant.

1. This case, however, has an exceptional element to it. The victim is a young woman who has attended Court today with a young child, aged seven weeks, who is also the child of the offender.

1. Mr Edmonds has informed me that the victim has no fears for her safety and that there have been no incidents since she and the offender reunited last September. I am also advised that the victim does not wish to provide any form of Victim Impact Statement.

1. Mr Edmonds has fairly conceded that a custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. However, he submitted that there are alternatives to a term of full-time imprisonment. I could impose an Intensive Corrections Order, a suspended sentence or a deferred sentence.

1. I think that this matter should be finalised today so that the offender can return to his partner and family and, hopefully, play a supportive and constructive role in their lives. For that reason, I think that the most appropriate option in this case is a suspended sentence.

1. I note that it is clear from the Pre-Sentence Report that the offender has…