R v Martin - [2013] ACTSC 280

THE QUEEN v SHARLENE MARIE MARTIN
[2013] ACTSC 280 (31 October 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – No matter of principle

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 26
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7, Pt 4.4

R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Charnock (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 4 September 2012)

R v Flowers (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Higgins CJ, 28 May 2013)

R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166

R v Laipato (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010)

Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305

R v Neish (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 24 May 2013)

R v O’Brien (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 10 June 2008)

R v Sarlija (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 21 June 2009)

R v Subritzky (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 15 June 2009)

R v Thawer [2009] NSWCCA 158
R v Webb (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Crispin J, 28 August 2003)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 88 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 31 October 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 88 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
V
SHARLENE MARIE MARTIN

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  31 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Sharlene Marie Martin be convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on 2 March 2013.

Sharlene Marie Martin be sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months to commence on 7 September 2013.

A period of ten months be set from 31 October 2013 to 30 August 2014, during which that period of imprisonment is to be served by periodic detention, the first period of detention to commence on 1 November 2013.

The sentence be suspended on 31 August 2014 for a period of two years.

Sharlene Marie Martin be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of three years from today with a probation condition that she be on probation from August 2014 for two years, or such lesser period as the person delegated to supervise her considers appropriate, and that she obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise her, especially as to appropriate interventions to resolve the areas of dynamic risk identified in the Pre-Sentence Report dated 17 October 2013.

I have often said that violence is a social evil that the legislature requires the courts to do what they can to prevent, by punishing offenders and thus also deterring them and others, as well as meeting the other purposes of punishment set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2013] ACTSC 280
Case: [2013] ACTSC 280
Decision Date: 31 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Sharlene Marie Martin, who was accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm on another individual on 2 March 2013. The dispute centred on whether Martin's actions were reckless and if they met the legal criteria for this offence. The court responsible for the case was the Supreme Court, which had to determine Martin's guilt based on the presented evidence and legal arguments.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Martin's conduct could be classified as reckless within the meaning of the relevant statute. The court had to assess whether Martin had a conscious disregard for the risk of causing grievous bodily harm and if her actions were sufficiently blameworthy to warrant a criminal conviction. Another issue was whether the prosecution had proven the requisite elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that Martin's actions were indeed reckless, as she consciously disregarded the substantial risk of causing grievous bodily harm. The evidence demonstrated that Martin had a clear understanding of the potential consequences of her actions but chose to proceed regardless. The court determined that Martin's conduct was blameworthy and met the legal threshold for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the court convicted Martin of the offence. The final order was that Martin be convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on 2 March 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sharlene Marie Martin be convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on 2 March 2013.

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.