Legal Research
Cases
R v March

R v March

Case [2023] ACTSC 28 17 February 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v March
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 28
Hearing Date:	2 December 2022
DecisionDate:	17 February 2023
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [143]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – forcible confinement – threaten participant in legal proceedings – where victims two young women unknown to the offender – application of sentencing principles – Bugmy – prior criminal record – protection of the community
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 111, 709A Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 34
Cases Cited:	Bloxsome v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 52 Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 1 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 DPP v Jovicic [2001] VSCA 43; 121 A Crim R 497 Evans v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 19 Hasan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 352; 222 A Crim R Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hillier v DPP [2009] NSWCCA 312; 198 A Crim R 565 Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346 Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35 Linney v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 251 Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 O'Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Bloxsome [2019] ACTSC 217 R v Cole [2017] ACTSC 404 R v Dalton; R v Fleet [2014] ACTSC 204 R v De Jesus (1986) 20 A Crim R 402 R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82 R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 R v Evans [2020] ACTSC 285 R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133 R v Laipato [2019] ACTSC R v Lane (1990) 48 A Crim R 161 R v Lockwood [2018] ACTSC 288 R v March [2014] ACTSC 244 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566 R v Minnis [2014] ACTSC 268 R v Newman; R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 102 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236 R v Redenbach (1991) 52 A Crim R 95 R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38 Van der Baan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 5 Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14 Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA…

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 March

Details

AGLC: R v March [2023] ACTSC 28
Case: [2023] ACTSC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, James Dudley March pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, forcible confinement, and threatening a participant in a criminal proceeding. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the offender's subjective circumstances, and relevant sentencing principles. The court considered the offender's disadvantaged background, mental health issues, and the need to protect the community. After assessing all relevant factors, the court sentenced the offender to various terms of imprisonment for each offence, with some sentences to run concurrently. The non-parole period was set at six years, taking into account the offender's high risk of reoffending and low prospects of rehabilitation.

The final orders included sentences for each offence, with some sentences to commence at different dates, as well as the cancellation of two suspended sentences and the good behaviour orders associated with them. No action was taken on the breach of the remaining good behaviour order.

Orders