R v Kepaoa

Case [2017] ACTSC 414


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Kepaoa

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 414

Hearing Date:

30 October 2017

DecisionDate:

30 October 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [43]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – common assault – offender intoxicated – repeated punches to the face and jaw – early plea of guilty – full admissions to police – low risk of reoffending – no penalty other than imprisonment appropriate – Intensive Corrections Order Assessment ordered

Legislation Cited:

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 26

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 78

Cases Cited:

R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227

R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241
R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307
R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194

R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Elesakepaoa Kepaoa (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

B Ngugi (Crown)

R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 215 of 2017

SCC 216 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Elesakepaoa Kepaoa, has pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.

  1. There is also a charge of common assault that was transferred as a related charge pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is 13 years’ imprisonment.

  1. The maximum penalty for the offence of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act is two years’ imprisonment.

Facts

  1. At about 3:00am on Sunday 23 April 2017 the offender and his group of friends were in the Mooseheads pub and nightclub on London Circuit, Civic, ACT.  Also at the nightclub was the victim of the indictable offence and a group of his friends.  The victim was the designated driver for the evening and was not consuming alcohol.

  1. The offender and his friends became involved in an altercation with the victim and his group of friends that involved some pushing and shoving.

  1. As a result of the interaction the victim and his group of friends left the Mooseheads nightclub and started walking in the direction of Cube Nightclub located in Petrie Plaza, Canberra ACT.

  1. As they were leaving Mooseheads, the victim approached the security guard positioned on the staircase and told him that a fight was about to break out and that they were trying to leave.

  1. Neither the offender nor the victim were involved in the initial altercation.

  1. As the victim and his friends were walking in the direction of Cube Nightclub and past the pizza stand located on London Circuit, the victim looked back and saw that the offender together with his group of friends had also exited Mooseheads and were looking around.

  1. CCTV footage from the Bourbon Street Kitchen located on the corner of London Circuit and East…

Continue reading R v Kepaoa

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414
Case
[2017] ACTSC 414
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kepaoa involved the defendant, Kepaoa, who pleaded guilty to charges of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and common assault. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and the defendant's background. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues the court needed to address included determining the appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions, considering the aggravating factors such as the defendant's intoxication and the violent nature of the assault, and assessing the defendant's likelihood of reoffending. The court also had to consider the defendant's early plea of guilty and full admissions to police as mitigating factors.

The court, after carefully considering the evidence and submissions, found that the defendant's actions were of a serious nature and warranted a penalty that reflected the gravity of the offences. However, the court also noted the defendant's low risk of reoffending and the mitigating factors of the early plea and admissions. The court ordered an assessment for an Intensive Corrections Order, recognising that it might be an appropriate alternative to imprisonment, and deferred sentencing to allow for the assessment to be completed.

The court's final orders included deferring sentencing to allow for an assessment of an Intensive Corrections Order and directing the defendant to attend for the assessment. The court reserved its decision on the final sentence until after the assessment was completed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [43]

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.