R v Myles

Case [2017] ACTSC 194

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Myles

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 194

Hearing Date:

25 July 2017, 31 July 2017

DecisionDate:

31 July 2017

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

Sentenced to one year and 10 months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive corrections order with 249 hours of community service work.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offences against the person – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – guilty plea – one punch attack – offender intoxicated – no relevant criminal history –  good prospect of rehabilitation – whether sentence to be served by intensive corrections order or full-time imprisonment – intensive corrections order with community service

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 (ACT) s 20

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35, 80D(6)

Cases Cited:

R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34

R v Bartlett [2016] ACTSC 390
R v Bartlett (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 51
R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241
R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180

R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45

R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330

Sharma v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 8

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Ryan Anthony Myles (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown)

Mr A Doig (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Capital Lawyers (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 65 of 2017

MURRELL CJ:

  1. The offender is to be sentenced for the offence that, on 23 October 2016, he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Jason Aylott. 

  1. This is an offence against s 20 of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) that carries a maximum penalty of 13 years' imprisonment. 

  1. The offender pleaded guilty at the third mention before the Magistrates Court. Although the Crown case was strong, the utilitarian value of the plea is high. I will allow a discount of 25 per cent pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).

Facts 

  1. Between 7 pm on Saturday, 22 October 2016 and 3 am on Sunday, 23 October 2016, the offender consumed about 15 beers (approximately 21 standard drinks).  The offender attended the Academy Nightclub in Civic with his then partner and three others. 

  1. At about 2 am on Sunday morning, he followed his partner downstairs towards the main dance floor at the Academy Nightclub.  As she was walking down the stairs, the offender's partner greeted the victim, leaning over to give him a quick hug.  The offender mistakenly concluded that the victim was his partner's former boyfriend.  He believed that his partner and the victim had “cheated on him”.  The offender raised his right arm and punched the victim in the lower right jaw with a closed fist.  Although it was forceful, the punch did not cause the victim to fall to the ground. 

Victim impact

  1. The Court acknowledges the serious injury caused to the victim.

  1. The victim read a victim impact statement to the Court.

  1. Initially, the impact of the injuries put…

Continue reading R v Myles

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194
Case
[2017] ACTSC 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Myles involved the defendant Myles, who had been charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the relevant court, where Myles entered a guilty plea. The attack, a one-punch incident, occurred while Myles was intoxicated. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account Myles' lack of relevant criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Myles should be sentenced to an intensive corrections order (ICO) or full-time imprisonment. The court considered the principles of sentencing for offences against the person, particularly grievous bodily harm. Factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence, Myles' level of culpability, and the risk of reoffending were carefully evaluated. The court also weighed the potential for rehabilitation and the impact of a custodial sentence on Myles' prospects for reintegration into society.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Myles' intoxication at the time of the offence did not absolve him of responsibility but did influence his culpability. Given Myles' otherwise clean criminal record and the good prospects for rehabilitation, the court concluded that an ICO would be more appropriate. The court imposed a one-year and ten-month imprisonment term, to be served through an ICO with 249 hours of community service work. This decision aimed to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, providing Myles with an opportunity to address his behaviour while contributing positively to the community.

The court's final orders mandated that Myles be sentenced to one year and ten months' imprisonment, to be served by an ICO, which included 249 hours of community service work. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of Myles' circumstances and the broader principles of criminal justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to one year and 10 months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive corrections order with 249 hours of community service work.

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.