R v Rutera

Case [2007] NSWDC 240
CITATION: R v Rutera [2007] NSWDC 240
HEARING DATE(S): 14/09/07
25/09/07
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
25 September 2007
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Conlon SC DCJ
DECISION: CONVICTED: Sentenced to non-parole period of 2 years with an additional 2 years imprisonment. Special Circumstances.
CATCHWORDS: Maliciously inflict grevious bodily harm
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
CASES CITED: R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 330
PARTIES: Crown
Malcolm Junior Rutera (Accused)
FILE NUMBER(S): 07/41/0102
SOLICITORS: Mr M Stollery (Crown)
Mr G West (Accused)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Malcolm Junior Rutera appears for sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. This offence is contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The offender has also requested that one further matter be taken into account on a Form 1 Schedule. The facts (contained in bundle of documents exhibit A) are as follows:


      “During the evening of 25 November 2006 the victim Mark Eggleston joined approximately ten colleagues for Christmas drinks at the Brewery Bar situated on Crown Street, Wollongong. At about 12.15am that night the victim left the function along with his colleagues and walked west along Crown Street. During this time the victim has walked ahead of the main group to make a mobile telephone call. He was approximately ten metres in front of his colleagues in the vicinity of the Downtown Motel.
      The victim finalised his phone call, looked downwards and placed his mobile phone into is pocket. As the victim was lifting his head he felt a sudden blow to his nose region. This caused sudden and extreme pain and he dropped to the ground. At this time there were a number of witnesses walking behind the victim and the offender. One of the witnesses is named Mark Stone and he was not known to either the offender or the victim.
      Mr Stone states that he was walking eastbound on the northern side of Crown Street, Wollongong. He observed the offender walking with three or four other males. Mr Stone recalls the offender walking past the Glasshouse Tavern towards the Downtown Motel. He observed the offender approaching the victim from behind and saw the offender step to his left as he neared the victim and then king hit the victim from behind and to the side. He observed his fist connecting with the victim’s face.
      Mr Stone stated that there was no prior conversation between the offender and the victim. He said ‘It was a totally unprovoked attack’. Mr Stone also said in his statement:
          ‘At the time of the assault I was approximately four to five metres to the right hand side of him. There were also a large number of people walking behind the victim. I walked through the group to confront the male offender but was stopped by another male within the group. This male said “What are you doing?”, I said “That was the biggest dog act”,…

Continue reading R v Rutera

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rutera [2007] NSWDC 240
Case
[2007] NSWDC 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rutera, the defendant was charged with the malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another individual. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The crux of the dispute lay in the interpretation of the term "maliciously" as used in the Crimes Act, and the extent to which the defendant's actions constituted an offence under this provision. The prosecution argued that the defendant's conduct was deliberately and intentionally harmful, while the defence contended that the harm was not premeditated but rather a consequence of a heated argument.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the defendant's actions were indeed malicious as defined by statute, and second, if so, whether the severity of the injuries inflicted warranted the imposition of a significant penalty. The court had to carefully consider the mens rea required for the offence and the impact of the injuries on the victim. The prosecution had to prove that the defendant acted with intent to cause harm, while the defence sought to demonstrate either a lack of intent or a lesser degree of culpability.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant's conduct was indeed malicious, as it was carried out with the intent to cause harm. The court emphasised the gravity of the injuries sustained by the victim, which had long-lasting effects. In reaching its decision, the court balanced the need for punishment with the principles of justice and deterrence. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of two years, with an additional two years imprisonment, recognising the special circumstances of the case. The court made it clear that such offences would not be tolerated and that the sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

CONVICTED: Sentenced to non-parole period of 2 years with an additional 2 years imprisonment. Special Circumstances.

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.