R v Rahman - [2020] ACTSC 319

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Rahman
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 257
Hearing Date:	8 October 2021
Decision Date:	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

1. 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).
2. The maximum penalty is a fine of $240,000, imprisonment for 15 years, or both.
3. 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

4.       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.
5.       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'.
6.       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.
7.       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.
8.       When a corrections officer responded, they observed flames on top of the mattress. The offender was standing at the front window of his cell.
9.       Two additional corrections officers assisted to extinguish the fire using a fire extinguisher and a fire hose.
10.     The offender was handcuffed and removed from the cell. All CSU detainees were evacuated.
11.     ACT Fire & Rescue attended and set up a special ventilation system to remove…

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 [2020] ACTSC 319
Case: [2020] ACTSC 319
Decision Date: 8 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rahman involved an individual charged with arson, where the offending was a result of the offender's schizophrenia. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering the mitigating factor of his mental health condition.

The central legal issue before the court was to establish a sentence that would appropriately address the offence while also taking into account the offender's schizophrenia. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to provide treatment and support for the offender's mental health condition. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to arson, including the potential harm caused to the community and the offender's culpability.

The court found that the offender's schizophrenia significantly impacted his ability to control his actions at the time of the offence. The court considered the offender's remorse, his lack of criminal history, and the recommendations of a psychiatric report in determining the sentence. The court decided that a good behaviour order with additional conditions was the most appropriate sentence, as it would provide the offender with the necessary support and treatment for his mental health condition while also holding him accountable for his actions. The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order with additional conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order with additional

conditions

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.