R v Pallier - [2017] ACTSC 112

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pallier
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 112
Hearing Date:	16 May 2017
DecisionDate:	16 May 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [24]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – plea of guilty – criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 43 and 249 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 33
Cases Cited:	R v Micallef (unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Mahoney JA, Hunt CJ and Allen J, 14 September 1993) R v Zoef [2005] NSWCCA 268
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Pallier (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr R Livingston (Offender)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) K Bolas Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 92 of 2016; SCC 95 of 2016; SCC 97 of 2016

ELKAIM J:

On 6 March 2017 the offender pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 13 years imprisonment.

The offender has requested that two other offences be taken into account. They are:

(a)Possessing ammunition contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $1,500.
(b)Possessing a firearm contrary to s 43(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is five years imprisonment.

These two charges arose from the offender’s involvement in the main charge. On 10 January 2016 the offender shot a Mr Rogan in the right leg, using the rifle which is the subject of the firearms charge. The background to the shooting arose from a dispute between Mr Rogan and Mr Hooper concerning the latter’s partner, and information that there had been some sexual liaison between her and Mr Rogan.

The offender was in Mr Hooper’s camp and intervened in a physical fight that was occurring between Mr Hooper and Mr Rogan. There is no suggestion that the offender shot Mr Rogan for the purpose of defending Mr Hooper. The shooting was callous and unnecessary.

In a record of interview conducted on 29 January 2016, the offender suggested that he had not intended to shoot Mr Rogan, but rather only to make a loud bang.

The offender was initially arrested on 11 January 2016 and then released on bail on 22 June 2016. After his plea of guilty, he returned to custody on 6 March 2017. Any sentence of imprisonment must be backdated to 24 September 2016.

The offender was born in Bathurst in 1989. His parents separated at his birth and he did not meet his father until he was 17 years of age. He had a stepfather who was apparently abusive. After reuniting with his father, the offender has apparently developed a good relationship with him, as well as…

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 Pallier

Details

AGLC: R v Pallier [2017] ACTSC 112
Case: [2017] ACTSC 112
Decision Date: 16 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Pallier, was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm upon another person. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Pallier following his plea of guilty. The defendant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences, was a significant factor in the sentencing decision.

The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly in relation to the defendant's criminal history and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. It was necessary to balance these factors with the principles of proportionality and the protection of society. The court was also required to assess the impact of the offence on the victim and the circumstances under which the offence was committed.

The court found that, given Pallier's history of similar offences, a significant term of imprisonment was warranted to achieve the aims of deterrence and protection of the community. The court also considered the need for rehabilitation, given the repetitive nature of the defendant's offending. After weighing all relevant factors, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, the specifics of which were detailed in paragraph [24] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [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.