R v Robertson - [2020] ACTSC 325

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Robertson
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 325
Hearing Date:	4 December 2020
DecisionDate:	4 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [24]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – cause grievous bodily harm – property damage – common assault –referral to ACAT – need to finalise criminal proceedings
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 25, 26, 331 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33
Cases Cited:	R v Miles [2016] ACTSC 83 R v Price [2015] ACTSC 324 R v Tonga [2015] ACTSC 365 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael John Robertson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 59 of 2020; SCC 60 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

On 18 August 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to three charges on an indictment dated 17 August 2020.

The three offences and their maximum penalties are:

(a)Unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm (SCCAN127/2020), contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.
(b)Property damage (SCCAN128/2020), contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $160,000 or both.
(c)Common assault (SCCAN129/2020), contrary to 26 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment.

There is a detailed statement of facts in Exhibit A. In summary these are domestic violence offences. On 19 November 2019 the offender had an argument with his partner’s son. The following day he had an argument with his partner. He struck her to the right side of her face, fracturing her jaw. This is the offence of causing grievous bodily harm.

The victim required surgery which included the fixation of a fracture. A plate and screws were inserted. She was on a pureed food diet for a period of six weeks.

The damaging property offence relates to setting fire to his partner’s residence. There are photographs of the extensive damage caused.

The common assault relates to the interaction with a police officer when the offender was arrested later in the day. By this time he was well intoxicated and particularly difficult to deal with. There wasn’t an actual physical assault but rather the making of serious threats. I regard this with some concern because a police officer, doing his duty in the interests of the public, should be entitled to work without being the subject of offensive threats. This is why although the sentence for the offence will be relatively short, it will not be entirely concurrent.

The offender has a criminal record which is wide-ranging both in the offences and in the places of commission. He has offended both in the ACT and New South Wales. He has a poor record in obeying supervision orders.

The…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [2020] ACTSC 325
Case: [2020] ACTSC 325
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the defendant, Robertson, was charged with causing grievous bodily harm, property damage, and common assault. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence and finalising the criminal proceedings. The decision also involved a referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to assess if the criminal proceedings should be finalised.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the criminal proceedings should be finalised, given the referral to the AAT, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of the charges. The court had to consider the interplay between the criminal proceedings and the administrative process, ensuring that justice was served in both contexts.

The court carefully examined the circumstances of the charges and the impact of the defendant's actions. It considered the gravity of the offences, the need for punishment, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that the sentences imposed were appropriate and that the criminal proceedings should be finalised, in line with the referral to the AAT. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and the need to provide a comprehensive resolution to the defendant's legal issues.

The court ordered that the criminal proceedings be finalised in accordance with the referral to the AAT, ensuring that all aspects of the defendant's charges were addressed appropriately. This decision balanced the need for punishment with the administrative process, aiming to provide a just outcome for all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24]

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.