R v Palmer - [2020] ACTSC 13

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Palmer
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 13
Hearing Dates:	1 April 2019; 26 August 2019; 3 February 2020
DecisionDate:	3 February 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [26]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – burglary – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – choke render person insensible – pleas of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 27 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 311
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Glenn Peter Palmer (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Naidu (Crown) M Keaney (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 186 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 1 April 2019 the offender was arraigned on an indictment dated 29 August 2018. The offender entered a plea of guilty in relation to Count 1, Count 2 and Count 4 in full satisfaction of the indictment.

A summary of the offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a) Burglary, contrary to s 311(1)(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $210,000, or both.

(b) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment.

(c) Choking a person and rendering them insensible, contrary to s 27(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

There are also three transfer charges, all of common assault. Those charges were remitted back to the Magistrates Court on 1 April 2019. Upon finalisation of the substantive matters today the Crown has agreed to withdraw those charges.

The three offences were all part of the same criminal episode. The Crown, in it’s submissions, correctly summarised the offences as follows:

In the early hours of the morning of 30 April 2018, the accused entered the house of his ex‑partner in Dunlop while she was asleep. He remained in the house despite her telling him to leave. After a short verbal altercation, he assaulted her causing bruising to her leg and choked her rendering her unconscious.

Burglary is always a serious offence because it involves breaching the safety and security of a person’s home. In this case the victim was woken by the offender who would not comply with her order to leave. I regard this offence as just below medium objective seriousness.

The actual bodily harm relates to some injuries to the complainant’s right leg. The injuries can be seen in photographs, although I do not think the photographs do justice to their severity. I also regard this offence as below medium objective seriousness.

I think the choking is the most objectively serious of the offences. Choking is an offence in which the victim will no doubt suffer a fear of loss of life. This is a product of interference with breathing. The…

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 Palmer

Details

AGLC: R v Palmer [2020] ACTSC 13
Case: [2020] ACTSC 13
Decision Date: 3 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Palmer came before the Court where the defendant, Palmer, was charged with burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence Palmer should receive following his pleas of guilty to both charges. The Court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Palmer’s criminal actions, which involved breaking into a residence and assaulting an individual, resulting in the victim being rendered insensible.

The primary legal issues before the Court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply to Palmer’s crimes, and the extent to which the seriousness of the offences warranted a specific sentence. The Court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the violent nature of the assault, the use of a chokehold which rendered the victim insensible, and the defendant's criminal history. The Court also had to balance the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation in sentencing.

The Court concluded that the offences warranted a custodial sentence. In arriving at this decision, the Court gave significant weight to the violent and premeditated nature of the assault, the level of force used, and the impact on the victim. The Court also considered the need to protect the community by ensuring Palmer is incapacitated to prevent further offending. After evaluating these factors, the Court determined an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of justice and rehabilitation. The final orders were made as outlined in [26].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [26]

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.