R v Islam - [2015] ACTSC 99

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Islam
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 99
Hearing Date(s):	3, 12 March 2015
DecisionDate:	14 April 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [24]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Particular Offences – offences against the person – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – offence committed in custody.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 72
Cases Cited:	R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v CCC (unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 19 October 2012) R v Davies (unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 17 July 2013) R v Pumper [2014] ACTSC 223 R v RC (unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 19 October 2012)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Isa Islam (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Self-represented (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 282 of 2014

Burns J:

Background

Isa Islam, on 2 December last year you entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to one charge contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), that on 18 December 2013 you recklessly did inflict grievous bodily harm on Darren Lee Cassidy. You were subsequently committed for sentence to this Court and on 3 March this year you maintained your plea of guilty to that charge. The maximum penalty for this offence is 13 years' imprisonment.

You have been a detainee at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (the AMC) since 2009. On 25 May 2011, you were sentenced to term of nine years' imprisonment commencing 4 July 2009 for an offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The victim of the present offence was also a detainee. For some reason which is not explained in the Agreed Statement of Facts, you and the victim had a long running dislike of each other.

The offence

At about 9.05 am on 18 December 2013, you entered a yard at the AMC where the victim was sitting on a plastic chair and there was a verbal disagreement between you during which you called the victim a dog. The victim called out to another detainee asking him to arrange for a custodial officer to attend. You then commenced to walk away from the victim at which time he made a comment to you about your recent failed bid for parole. You approached the victim and pulled him backward off the chair and used your right fist to punch him three times to the face. The force of these punches knocked the victim unconscious. The victim ended up lying unconscious, flat on his back on the floor of the yard. While he lay unconscious you stood over him, raised your leg and stomped with force on his face. Another detainee then intervened and you desisted. You left the area before going to a kitchen area and washing your hands. Your victim was left lying unconscious and bleeding heavily from…

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 Islam

Details

AGLC: R v Islam [2015] ACTSC 99
Case: [2015] ACTSC 99
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Islam, was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on a fellow prisoner while in custody. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Islam for his actions, which resulted in the victim sustaining significant injuries.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the determination of an appropriate sentence, considering the unique circumstances of the offence occurring in a custodial setting. The court had to balance the need for general deterrence with specific deterrence and the rehabilitation of the offender. Additionally, the court had to consider the severity of the injury inflicted and the level of culpability demonstrated by the respondent.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for a sentence that reflected the gravity of the actions. The court noted the substantial harm caused to the victim and the respondent's lack of remorse. After considering various sentencing principles and options, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the need for general deterrence, the protection of the community, and the potential for rehabilitation. The specific details of the sentence were reserved until the final order was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24]

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.