R v Rajek

Case [2024] QSC 63


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rajek [2024] QSC 63

PARTIES:

The King
v
Anthony Daniel Rajek

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

137/23

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2024

JUDGE:

Callaghan J

ORDER:

1.   Order that the defendant be convicted and imprisoned for a period of 13 years and six months.

2. Order that the offence be declared a serious violent offence pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

3.   Order that the period served between 16 January 2022 and 15 February 2024, that being a period of 761 days, to be time served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY – SENTENCE – where the defendant was charged with attempted murder – where the defendant had pleaded guilty to alternative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – where the jury convicted the defendant of attempted murder – where the offence was committed with no previous interaction with victim – where the offender had suffered some childhood trauma– where the offender was not diagnosed with any mental illness – where the offender was not intoxicated at the time of offending – interaction of serious violent offences scheme with other sentencing principles

COUNSEL:

D. Kovac for the Prosecution

N. Brown for the Defence

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the Prosecution
Lewis Hunter of Guest Lawyers for the Defence

  1. Mr Rajek, this will take a while so you can stay seated for the moment.  I will tell you when you can stand up.

  2. In January 2022, you were still just 21 years of age.  You were gainfully employed; in fact, working two jobs.  You had good relations with your colleagues.  To them and to the rest of the world you no doubt presented as an industrious and law‑abiding young man, but there was a hidden side to your existence.  Your work was tiring so you were using cocaine and methamphetamine.  Having lived with your grandmother for most of your life, you had just leased and moved into an apartment in the Brisbane CBD.  It was barely furnished.  The impression is that you were leading an unusual and spartan existence.

  3. At some stage you acquired the fearsome knife which is exhibit 5.  Shortly after 3:20 am on 16 January you emerged from that apartment armed with that knife.  Notwithstanding its size, you were able to conceal it.  A facemask of a kind that is admittedly common these days concealed your identity.  However, your movements were captured on video cameras that record activity on the city streets.  You made your way to perhaps the most central and continuously populated area of the city, where the Queen Street and Albert Street malls intersect.  There was apparent purpose to your movement.

  4. As you…

Continue reading R v Rajek

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rajek [2024] QSC 63
Case
[2024] QSC 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rajek involved the defendant, who was charged with attempted murder. The defendant had pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but the jury ultimately convicted the defendant of attempted murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various factors including the nature of the offence, the defendant's background, and relevant sentencing principles.

The court had to consider the interplay between the serious violent offences scheme and other sentencing principles in light of the defendant's actions, which were carried out without any prior interaction with the victim, and the absence of mental illness or intoxication at the time of the offence. The court was also required to address the defendant's history of childhood trauma and how this might inform the sentencing process.

After carefully weighing these considerations, the court found that the defendant should be imprisoned for a term of 13 years and six months. The court also declared the offence to be a serious violent offence under section 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Additionally, the court ordered that the period the defendant had already served from 16 January 2022 to 15 February 2024, amounting to 761 days, be counted as time served under the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order that the defendant be convicted and imprisoned for a period of 13 years and six months.

2. Order that the offence be declared a serious violent offence pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

3. Order that the period served between 16 January 2022 and 15 February 2024, that being a period of 761 days, to be time served under the sentence.

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.