SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Hudson |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 110 |
Hearing Date: | 1 May 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 2 May 2019 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Offender sentenced to a total of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 months. Application for reparation order dismissed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Use a carriage service to harass – Make demand accompanied by threat – Threat to inflict grievous bodily harm – Blackmail – Arson – Recklessly inflict actual bodily harm – Family violence – Lengthy criminal history – Additional offences whilst in custody – Continued association with antisocial peers – Whether the offender has a good prospect of rehabilitation – Whether reparation order should be made |
Legislation Cited: | Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 82 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 23, 31, 32(2), 381 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 342, 361(1), 404(1) |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Aaron Raymond Hudson (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Gabbedy Milson Lee (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 41 of 2019; SCC 42 of 2019 |
Murrell CJ
The offender is to be sentenced for the following seven indictable offences:
(a)Between 1 August 2018 and 18 October 2018, he used a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being harassing towards Kaitlin Lees. This offence is contrary to s 474.17(1) of Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and carries a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Between 1 August 2018 and 18 October 2018, he used carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being harassing towards Mitchell Jolly.
(c)On 16 October 2018, he made a demand of Mr Jolly accompanied by a threat to endanger Mr Jolly, contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
(d)On 16 October 2018, he threatened Vernessa Lees that he would inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Jolly, contrary to s 31 of the Crimes Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.
(e)On 18 October 2018, he blackmailed Mr Jolly by making an unwarranted demand with menace for $5000, contrary to s 342 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code (ACT)). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
(f)On 25 November 2018, he committed an arson affecting Cell 15, Sentence Unit 1, AMC, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
(g)On 25 November 2018,…
Continue reading R v Hudson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hudson [2019] ACTSC 110
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the severity of the offences, the respondent's extensive criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The respondent had a history of violent and antisocial behaviour, including engaging in criminal activity while in custody and maintaining connections with antisocial individuals. The court also took into account the family violence aspect of the crimes and the impact on the victims. The court held that the respondent had a poor prospect of rehabilitation given the persistent pattern of offending and association with negative influences. The court further considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring the punishment fit the crimes committed.
After evaluating all factors, the court sentenced the respondent to a total of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 33 months. The court also dismissed the application for a reparation order, finding it inappropriate given the nature of the respondent's crimes and their history. This decision underscores the court's focus on public protection and deterrence, as well as the need to hold the respondent accountable for their actions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Offender sentenced to a total of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 months.
Application for reparation order dismissed.
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.