R v Inder - [2020] ACTSC 111

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Inder
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 111
Hearing Date(s):	31 March 2020
DecisionDate:	31 March 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	A total sentence of imprisonment of 32 months, commencing 9 July 2019 and ending on 8 March 2022. Non-parole period of 15 months from 9 July 2019 – 8 October 2020. See [62]-[69].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – making a demand with threat – common assault – unauthorised possession or use of a prohibited firearm – possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 32(2), 114C Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33(1), 33, 35 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42(1)(a)(iii)
Cases Cited:	R v Goodge [2019] ACTSC 297 R v Mailau [2018] ACTSC 187 R v NF [2018] ACTSC 165 R v Gordon [2018] ACTSC 94 R v Walker; R v Walker [2016] ACTSC 232 R v Cockburn (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 18 Butler v R [2013] ACTCA 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew Inder (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren (Crown) J Maher (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 249 of 2019 SCC 250 of 2019

Walker AJ

Summary of charges

The offender, Matthew Inder, is charged with making a demand with threat (CAN 7768/19) on 9 July 2019, contrary to s 32(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (‘the Crimes Act’), an offence which on conviction carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Related to this offence and transferred from the Magistrates Court to be dealt with concurrently are two counts of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, which on conviction carry up to two years imprisonment.

As convictions will be recorded in respect to these matters, I am to deal with a number of breach matters, namely, suspended sentences of imprisonment imposed on 19 February 2019 by way of resentence in breach proceedings for the offences of an unauthorised possession or use of a prohibited firearm (CC2017/2407) and possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime (CC2016/11327).

Evidence

For the purposes of sentencing I have been provided with agreed statements of facts in relation to both the instant offences and the breach matters, Inder’s prior criminal history from both New South Wales and the ACT, a presentence report dated 19 March 2020 under the hand of Fabi Kandamparambil, community corrections officer, and references in support of Inder from Veronika Tekinder, his partner, Julie Inder, his mother, and Marco Paunovic and Jonathan Thompson, both former employers.

Factual circumstances

The offences arose in the context of a dispute between Mr Inder and Alexander Nicholson about who was responsible for the provision of ‘cutter’ to Ms Lucinda Bates who had intended to buy an ounce of methylamphetamine in July 2018. There were three potential people at fault: Ms Bates' partner, Mr Hamzic, who…

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 Inder

Details

AGLC: R v Inder [2020] ACTSC 111
Case: [2020] ACTSC 111
Decision Date: 31 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Inder, was charged with making a demand with menaces, common assault, unauthorised possession or use of a prohibited firearm, and possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the respondent pleaded guilty to the charges. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The court considered the respondent's background, the nature of the offences, and the impact on the victims. The court acknowledged the respondent's guilty plea and the absence of any prior criminal history. However, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offences, particularly the use of a firearm and the threat made to the victim. The court also took into account the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court imposed a total sentence of imprisonment of 32 months, with a non-parole period of 15 months.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences, provided an appropriate level of deterrence, and protected the community. The court also considered the need for rehabilitation and reintegration of the respondent into society. The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the relevant legal principles and sentencing guidelines.

The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a total of 32 months, commencing on 9 July 2019 and ending on 8 March 2022. The non-parole period was set at 15 months, from 9 July 2019 to 8 October 2020. The court's orders reflect the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

A total sentence of imprisonment of 32 months, commencing 9 July 2019 and ending on 8 March 2022. Non-parole period of 15 months from 9 July 2019 – 8 October 2020. See [62]-[69].

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.