R v Redmond (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 295

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Redmond (No 2)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 295
Hearing Date:	7 October 2022
DecisionDate:	27 October 2022
Before:	Kennett J
Decision:	See [43]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where victim of offence is a sex worker – consideration of victim impact statement where several charges discontinued and significant psychological impacts reported
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 86 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 35 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24
Cases Cited:	R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71 R v Shearer [2020] ACTSC 100 R v Verdins [2007] VSVA 102 Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) James Redmond ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Marson ( Crown) R Baldeo ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) David Healey Solicitors ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 17 of 2021

KENNETT J:

Introduction

The offender, James Redmond, is before the Court for sentence on one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for five years.

Facts

On 6 February 2020, the offender attended a brothel in Canberra. On his arrival, the offender met with the complainant, who was a sex worker in the employ of the brothel. The offender selected the “standard package”, paid the receptionist an amount in cash, and went with the complainant to a suite.

The offender got undressed and, after being informed by the complainant that it was a requirement, allowed the complainant to conduct a “health check” on him.

The offender then moved to the shower. He asked the complainant, who was undressing, to come over towards the shower. He grabbed her right wrist and attempted unsuccessfully to pull her into the shower (this does not form part of the charged offence). During this altercation he also grabbed her by the hair. The complainant said “no, I’m dressed, I’m not getting in the shower” and moved away from the shower. The offender appeared to sulk at this response.

Once the complainant was undressed, she returned to the shower area and provided the offender with a towel. The two then moved to a bed in the suite and had a brief discussion. The offender told the complainant to lie on her back and they engaged in consensual penile-vaginal intercourse using a condom for a period of five minutes, which ended with the offender ejaculating in the condom.

The offender tried again to engage in penile-vaginal intercourse with the complainant but was unsuccessful. The complainant told the offender “you’re not even in the hole” to which he replied “oh fuck”.

At some point during this interaction, the offender said to the complainant “I’m going to bite your tit off”. He then bit her on the left breast, which caused bruising.

In…

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 Redmond (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Redmond (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 295
Case: [2022] ACTSC 295
Decision Date: 27 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the respondent against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The respondent, Redmond, was charged with various offences arising from an incident involving a sex worker. Several charges were discontinued before the trial commenced, and the respondent pleaded guilty to the remaining charge. The trial judge sentenced Redmond to imprisonment, and he now appeals against that sentence.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately consider the impact of the discontinued charges and the psychological impacts reported by the victim. Redmond's counsel argued that the trial judge should have considered the full scope of the victim's injuries and psychological impacts, including those arising from the discontinued charges, when determining the appropriate sentence.

The Court held that the trial judge did not err in the way he considered the victim impact statement and the psychological impacts reported by the victim. The Court found that the trial judge had considered the impact of the offence on the victim, including the psychological impacts, and had appropriately weighed these factors in determining the sentence. The Court noted that while the victim had suffered significant psychological impacts, the trial judge had correctly considered these impacts in the context of the offence to which Redmond had pleaded guilty. The Court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The Court did not make any orders altering the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [43]

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.