Legal Research
Cases
R v Paredes Valdez

R v Paredes Valdez

Case [2022] ACTSC 126 24 May 2022

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Intensive Correction Order

Plea of Guilty

Rehabilitative Justice

Victim Impact

General Deterrence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Paredes Valdez
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 126
Hearing Date:	13 May 2022
DecisionDate:	24 May 2022
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [185]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – common assault – “one punch” attack – whether wholly suspended sentence or Intensive Correction Order appropriate – Intensive Correction Order imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Butters v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 1 Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 4 CMB v Attorney-General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346 Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; A Crim R 560 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428. Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6 Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 McCullough v The Queen (2009) 194 A Crim R 439 Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 41 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pattalis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 171 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 Petterson v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 133 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261 R v Butters [2019] ACTSC 143 R v Carmody (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 60 R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57 R v Daniel (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 117 R v Elson [2020] ACTSC 264 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Lacey [2020] ACTSC 241 R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; 243 A Crim R 31 R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 R v O’Brien [2022] ACTSC 86 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Srna [2018] ACTSC 337 R v Vardai [2020] ACTSC 297 R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38 Siganto v The Queen [1998] HCA 74; 194 CLR 656 Stanford v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 73 Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Marcos Paredes Valdez ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel N Deakes ( Crown) K Musgrove ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Boxall Legal ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 55 of 2022; SCC 56 of 2022

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

On 3 March 2022, Marcos Paredes Valdez (the offender) pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)An offence of…

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 Paredes Valdez

Details

AGLC: R v Paredes Valdez [2022] ACTSC 126
Case: [2022] ACTSC 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Marcos Paredes Valdez was sentenced for two offences: recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and common assault. The court accepted that the offences were committed while the offender was heavily intoxicated. The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm was two years imprisonment, reduced to account for the offender's early guilty plea. The appropriate sentence for the offence of common assault was three months imprisonment, reduced to account for the early guilty plea. The sentences were to be served concurrently and by way of an Intensive Correction Order, with an additional condition to undertake 150 hours of community service work within 24 months.

Orders