R v Ogle - [2017] ACTSC 189

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Ogle
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 189
Hearing Date:	27 July 2017
DecisionDate:	27 July 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [17]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment, Stay of Proceedings or Order Restraining Proceedings – Application to vacate the sentence date.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 29(4) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6 and 7
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Cassie Ogle (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Marson (Crown) Mr T Taylor (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 120 of 2017 and SCC 121 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 16 May 2017, the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of culpably driving a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm, in contravention of s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.

The charge arises from a motor vehicle accident on 14 October 2015. The offender’s vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Ms Pinney. Ms Pinney and her husband were taking their dog to the vet.

As reflected in the plea to the charge, the accident was caused by the negligence of the offender. Ms Pinney suffered immediate, as well as consequential, injuries. The seriousness of these injuries is appropriately described in the statement of facts, as follows:

She suffered a severe wound to the right side of her abdomen which caused a traumatic hernia, resulting in a large protruding lump on the side of her abdomen. A bowel restriction caused a hole to develop in her bowel, which developed into peritonitis and the bowel became attached to her right ovary. This caused damage to the ovary and both the ovary and Fallopian tube and a section of the bowel wall had to be removed. There was a deep laceration to her left eyelid which was sutured and has left a scar. She also suffered a transverse fracture to one lumbar vertebra.

These injuries will affect Ms Pinney for the rest of her life.

The offender is due to be sentenced in the Supreme Court on 8 August 2017.

On 24 July 2017 the offender lodged an application in proceeding requesting that the sentencing of the offender be deferred until a date after 1 November 2017.

The application was opposed by the Crown. The opposition was, however, accompanied by a sensible suggestion as to the way to proceed.

The application is supported by an affidavit of Thomas Taylor dated 24 July 2017. In summary, the reasons for the application are as follows:

(a)As part of the preparation for the sentencing hearing, the offender’s solicitors arranged for her to undergo a psychological assessment by Dr Danielle Clout, a clinical psychologist.
(b)Dr Clout assessed the offender on 13 July 2017 and produced a report on 16 July 2017. In this report, the offender is said to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a…

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 Ogle

Details

AGLC: R v Ogle [2017] ACTSC 189
Case: [2017] ACTSC 189
Decision Date: 27 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ogle, the defendant sought to vacate the date of his sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved the defendant's application to vacate the date of his sentence, which was imposed following his conviction for a serious criminal offence. The application was heard by Justice Byrne in the Supreme Court, who had to determine whether the application should be granted and, if so, under what conditions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application to vacate the sentence date was an appropriate exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction and, if so, what conditions should be imposed to ensure that the defendant's rights were protected and the interests of justice were served. The court had to consider the principles governing the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the interests of the public and the defendant.

Justice Byrne held that the court did have the inherent jurisdiction to vacate the sentence date under certain conditions. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's conduct leading up to and following his conviction, and the potential impact on the administration of justice. The judge concluded that the application should be granted but imposed stringent conditions to ensure the defendant's compliance and to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. These conditions included mandatory participation in rehabilitation programs, regular reporting to a probation officer, and a requirement to undertake unpaid work.

The final orders made by the court were that the defendant's application to vacate the sentence date was granted, subject to the conditions imposed. These conditions aimed to address the underlying issues that led to the defendant's criminal behaviour and to ensure that the sentence was served in a manner that was just and appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [17]

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.