SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Perry (a pseudonym) |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 299 |
Hearing Date: | 22 October 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 22 October 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | For threat to kill, three years’ imprisonment. For unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm, 30 months’ imprisonment. For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 18 months’ imprisonment. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence against a corrections officer – offences by a prisoner – special circumstances - sentencing purposes – punishment – denunciation – good prospects of rehabilitation - accountability |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 25 and 30 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 72(2) and 72(3) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Tom Perry (a pseudonym) (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr J Masters (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Marjason and Marjason Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 229 of 2017 |
Murrell CJ:
On 24 July 2018, a jury found that the offender was guilty of the following offences:
(a)Threaten to kill Marshall Steen, being reckless as to whether Mr Steen would fear that the threat would be carried out and in circumstances in which a reasonable person would fear that the threat would be carried out, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment;
(b)Unlawfully cause grievous bodily harm to Officer Aristotle Trikas, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment;
(c)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Officer Edward Wylie, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
Facts
In January 2015, the offender was a sentenced prisoner at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). He shared a cell with Mr Steen.
On 14 or 15 January 2017, the offender use methamphetamine (ice) and developed psychotic symptoms (he “heard” voices and experienced ideas of reference). The offender knew that methamphetamine could cause similar symptoms but was unaware that symptoms could be as extreme as those which overcame him on 15 January 2017.
On the morning of 15 January 2017, there was in an incident between the offender and Mr Steen which resulted in Mr Steen activating the cell alarm. Officers attended the cell.
The offender’s behaviour became more agitated.
The offender was asked to place his hands through the cell hatch to be handcuffed. The offender placed his hands through the hatch, but withdrew them after only one hand had been cuffed.
The offender started punching Mr Steen. The offender threatened to kill him. He placed the handcuff chain against Mr Steen’s throat.
The officers decided to enter the cell and remove the offender in order to protect Mr Steen’s safety.
When the officers entered the cell, there was a scuffle between the offender and the officers. The offender swung at the officers and attempted to charge through to the cell exit door.
Officer Wylie was…
Continue reading R v Perry (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Potts [2018] ACTSC 299
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 299
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the County Court had erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The respondent argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the offences, particularly given his good prospects for rehabilitation and his accountability. The Court of Appeal considered whether the County Court had appropriately balanced the purposes of punishment, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in arriving at the sentence.
In considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal noted the seriousness of the offences, which involved violence against a corrections officer in the course of their duty. The Court observed that the offences demonstrated a significant breach of community standards and warranted a punitive response. However, the Court also took into account the respondent’s young age, his expressed remorse, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The Court concluded that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed by the County Court was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the sentence imposed by the County Court, ordering that the respondent serve three years’ imprisonment for the threat to kill, 30 months’ imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, and 18 months’ imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Orders
Orders of the court
For threat to kill, three years’ imprisonment.
For unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm, 30 months’ imprisonment.
For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 18 months’ imprisonment.
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.