SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Kemppainen (No 2) |
Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 159 |
Hearing Date(s): | 16 June 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 16 June 2020 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | The offender is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive correction order with additional conditions. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – Intensive correction order assessment – Public health emergency |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) s 11 |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Matti Bruce Kemppainen (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Sabharwal (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 141 of 2019 |
MURRELL CJ
Introduction
These reasons are additional to those I provided in R v Kemppainen; R v Rose [2020] ACTSC 69. For the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, I indicated a sentencing range of two and a half to three years’ imprisonment as a starting point, with a discount of 15 per cent for the plea of guilty. I requested that the offender be assessed for his suitability for an intensive correction order (ICO).
Psychologist’s report
The offender tendered a psychologist's report by Dr Boer.
The offender told Dr Boer that he is now in a new relationship and his partner does not drink or use drugs. The offender has two children, aged seven and four. The younger child resides with the offender and the offender's mother.
Dr Boer opined that the offender remains at low risk of general reoffending, including violent offending, due to factors such as ongoing employment, stable accommodation, and abstinence from drugs. Dr Boer also referred to the fact that the offender has been assessed as suitable for the role of custodial parent.
Dr Boer stated:
In my opinion, Mr Kemppainen's risk issues are primarily related to substance use, primarily the use of methamphetamine (ice). His recent offence was also substance-related – drinking to excess (“10 to 11 beers” by his own estimation). His relationship problems have been substance-related whether his partner at the time was not a substance user … or was a fellow drug user.
ICO assessment report
The author of the ICO assessment report assessed the offender as at medium to low risk of general reoffending. As part of the assessment, the offender provided four urinalysis samples for drug testing. All returned a negative result. The offender proposed that he would live with his mother, where he is currently residing, who can provide stable accommodation. She is willing to liaise with Corrective Services to ensure that the offender abides by any ICO conditions.
The report author stated that the offender had accepted responsibility for his actions and stated that his alcohol consumption was a contributing factor towards the offending.
The offender was assessed as suitable for an ICO, including a community service work condition. The report suggested…
Continue reading R v Kemppainen (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kemppainen (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 159
- Case
- [2020] ACTSC 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and the consideration of an intensive correction order, including additional conditions, in light of the public health emergency. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential risks to public health posed by traditional imprisonment.
The court found that while the offence warranted a significant punishment, the public health emergency necessitated a careful consideration of the defendant's sentence. The court determined that a sentence involving an intensive correction order with additional conditions was appropriate. This decision allowed for the enforcement of a custodial sentence while mitigating the risks associated with traditional imprisonment during the public health emergency. The court imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order with additional conditions.
The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order with additional conditions, reflecting the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the public health context.
Orders
Orders of the court
The offender is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive correction order with additional conditions.
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.