SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Nyuon |
Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 171 |
Hearing Date: | 26 June 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 26 June 2020 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [24] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – common assault – plea of guilty – mid range objective seriousness – prior criminal history – sentence of imprisonment |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 34, 38(1)(a) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Chol Bol Nyuon (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 338 of 2019 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
Chol Bol Nyuon, the offender, pleaded guilty to one count of common assault (CC2019/13043) on 25 June 2020.
Facts
The facts are agreed and, in summary, are as follows. In the early hours of 2 October 2019 the offender and the victim, who I will refer to as KC, met up. Shortly before 3:00am they attended a service station in Gungahlin and purchased cigarettes. They subsequently went to a house in Moncrieff where they spent a number of hours. During this time they consumed alcohol.
KC had a dental appointment in the city that day, so at approximately 7:30am he and the offender attended Ms Mary Ayuel’s house in Moncrieff. Ms Ayuel is KC’s cousin. KC intended to ask Ms Ayuel to drive him to the city for his appointment, on the basis that he would give her $18 as petrol money.
Despite Ms Ayuel being reluctant to allow the two men to enter her house, she let them in and they had a cigarette together. Ms Ayuel then told KC that ‘Clinton’ was in the bedroom. This referred to Mr Clinton Saki, an acquaintance of KC who he had known since approximately 2010 through their partners at the time. Ms Ayuel and the offender then went outside to have a cigarette while KC went to talk to Mr Saki in the bedroom, who was still in bed.
Approximately five minutes later KC went into the living room. Mr Saki came into the room and shouted in a loud voice words to the effect “Fuck, fuck, what happened? Someone has stolen my money.” Mr Saki immediately accused KC of stealing the $450, which he said was for his mother in Africa. He then went and got a knife and threatened to stab KC. Ms Ayuel and the offender stopped Mr Saki from doing so. Mr Saki and Ms Ayuel then undressed KC, however they did not locate the $450. They stole the $18 cash from KC at some point.
Mr Saki then proceeded to tie KC up and beat him with electric cables and burn him with a white household iron. The offender and Ms Ayuel were not present while Mr Saki burned KC.
The offender attended Liquorland in Amaroo and purchased a bottle of ‘Whispers’ alcohol and a bottle of ‘Passion Pop’. He then attended Coles Amaroo with…
Continue reading R v Nyuon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Nyuon [2020] ACTSC 171
- Case
- [2020] ACTSC 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to address two main legal issues: the objective seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s criminal history. The first issue involved assessing the nature and gravity of the assault, determining it to be of mid-range seriousness based on the facts presented. The second issue involved weighing the appellant’s prior criminal record, which included multiple convictions for similar offences, against the principles of sentencing. The court considered whether the appellant’s criminal history warranted an enhanced sentence and if so, to what extent.
Justice Smith, in delivering the judgment, carefully evaluated the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that the objective seriousness of the assault warranted a custodial sentence. However, it also acknowledged the appellant’s prior criminal history, which indicated a pattern of similar offending behaviour. After considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that a mid-range custodial sentence was appropriate, but it also needed to reflect the appellant’s repeated offending. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary and imposed a term that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.
The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment, with specific details of the term and conditions provided in the judgment. The court’s decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the gravity of the current offence and the broader context of the appellant’s criminal history.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [24]
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.