R v Krutsky; R v Weldon

[2017] ACTSC 359

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Krutsky; R v Weldon

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 359

Hearing Date:

30 November 2017

DecisionDate:

30 November 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [29] - [30]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

R v Newman; R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 102

R v Zdravkovic [2017] ACTSC 70

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Rebecca Katherine Krutsky (Offender)

Douglas James Weldon (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown)

Ms B Morrisroe (Offender – Krutsky)

Mr J Sabharwal (Offender – Weldon) 

Solicitors

Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

ACT Legal Aid (Offender – Krutsky)

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender – Weldon)

File Numbers:

SCC 171 of 2017; SCC 172 of 2017; SCC 134 of 2017; SCC 326 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

1. The two offenders were due to stand trial before a jury on 29 November 2017. They were facing two counts in an indictment dated 5 July 2017. Immediately before the proceedings were due to begin, I was informed that the offenders would enter a plea of guilty to the second count in the indictment. Their pleas were accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment.

1. The trial was set to run for two to three days. The pleas of guilty do have some utilitarian value, but it is limited. A jury panel had been assembled and the matter was ready to proceed. I think the offenders are entitled to some discount on their sentence, which I will apply in the manner set out below.

1. The two offenders pleaded guilty to an offence that on 3 April 2017 they assaulted Ms Laura Bowling and in so doing caused her actual bodily harm. 

1. The incident arose from a misguided attempt to retrieve a television set that the offenders perceived to have been stolen from them by Ms Bowling’s boyfriend. Whatever the actual position was in respect of the television, Ms Bowling was an innocent bystander.

1. The attack might be categorised as one in which the offenders took the law into their own hands or otherwise attempted to obtain a ‘just’ result. In reality they were acting entirely without justification and attacking a person who was completely innocent and had nothing to do with the television set.

1. According to the agreed statement of facts, the attack on Ms Bowling was primarily carried out by Ms Krutsky. The victim experienced ringing in her ears, had some of her hair pulled out, sustained a bite on her right arm, a bruise on her forehead and lumps on the back of her head. The photographs in Exhibit 5 probably do not do justice to the injuries. In addition, Ms Bowling was no doubt terrified by the experience, as was her 13-year…