R v Rahman - [2021] ACTSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rahman
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 257
Hearing Date:	8 October 2021
DecisionDate:	8 October 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order with additional conditions
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – where offending was product of offender’s schizophrenia – where offences committed almost two years ago – where offender demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 13, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v Beroukas [2021] ACTSC 172 R v Denniss [2021] ACTSC 15 R v Howsan [2020] ACTSC 172 R v Rahman [2020] ACTSC 319
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Touhid Rahman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe (Crown) J De Bruin (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 176 of 2021

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

The offender is to be sentenced for the offence that, on 7 December 2019, he committed arson contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

The maximum penalty is a fine of $240,000, imprisonment for 15 years, or both.

The offender pleaded guilty on 27 July 2021, at the fourth mention of the matter in the Magistrates Court. The appropriate discount under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) is 25 per cent.

Facts

On 7 December 2019, the offender was the sole occupant of cell 3 in the Crisis Support Unit (CSU) at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC). He was classed as a high-risk detainee because of the risk of harm that he presented to himself.

At about 6:29PM on 7 December 2019, the offender placed blankets, bedding, and a quantity of paper cups on his mattress. He walked away from the mattress and ate something as he walked around his cell. The parties agreed that his conduct at this time could be described as 'odd'.

A short time later, the offender retrieved an item from his left pants pocket, stood over his mattress and set alight the items on the mattress. After standing over the flame for a short time, he placed a blanket over the fire to fuel it. The cell began filling with smoke as the fire continued to burn.

After watching the fire for a while, the offender began to walk around the cell. He then used the cell intercom system to alert corrections officers.

When a corrections officer responded, they observed flames on top of the mattress. The offender was standing at the front window of his cell.

Two additional corrections officers assisted to extinguish the fire using a fire extinguisher and a fire hose.

The offender was handcuffed and removed from the cell. All CSU detainees were evacuated.

ACT Fire & Rescue attended and set up a special ventilation system to remove remaining smoke and chemicals from the air.

The fire damage cost about $2,691.00…

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 Rahman

Details

AGLC: R v Rahman [2021] ACTSC 257
Case: [2021] ACTSC 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Crown prosecuted Touhid Rahman for an offence of arson committed on 7 December 2019. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $240,000, imprisonment for 15 years, or both. The offender pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order with additional conditions. The key legal issues for the court were the appropriate discount for the offender's guilty plea and the factors that should be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. The court found that the appropriate discount under the Sentencing Act was 25 per cent. The court found that the offence was of relatively low objective seriousness. It was not pre-meditated and the offender was distressed at the time of the offence. The court found that the subjective circumstances of the offender were very strong. The offender has a history of mental illness and problematic drug use but has made great strides in addressing these issues. The court concluded that the dominant sentencing purpose in this case was rehabilitation. In these circumstances, the court found that a sentence of imprisonment was not the only available sentencing outcome.

The court sentenced the offender to a two-year good behaviour order with additional conditions. The offender is required to sign an undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations for a period of two years. The good behaviour order is subject to the additional conditions that the offender accept the supervision of Community Corrections, accept all directions of Community Corrections, continue to take all medications that are prescribed by his health care practitioners, and report to Community Corrections by 4PM today by telephone, with the assistance of defence counsel.

Orders