R v Saki - [2020] ACTSC 270

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Saki
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 270
Hearing Date:	6 October 2020
DecisionDate:	7 October 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [52]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – unlawful confinement – possession of cannabis – plea of guilty during trial – above mid range of objective seriousness – good prospects of rehabilitation – limited criminal history – risk of deportation – sentence of imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 34, 38 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45A Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 171(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	R v Ayuel [2020] ACTSC 213 R v Butters [2019] ACTSC 143 R v Nyuon [2020] ACTSC 171
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Clinton Saki (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 344 of 2019 SCC 345 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Clinton Saki, the offender, has pleaded guilty to one count of detaining a person, with intent to hold him for ransom or for any other advantage to any person and that person suffered grievous bodily harm while being detained (CC2019/10834). This is contrary to s 38(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The offender has also pleaded guilty to a transfer charge of possessing a prohibited substance, namely cannabis (CC2019/10833), contrary to s 171(1)(a) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $160.

He has two co-offenders, Mr Chol Bol Nyuon and Ms Mary Ayuel. Mr Nyuon was sentenced by me on 26 June 2020: R v Nyuon [2020] ACTSC 171. Ms Ayuel was sentenced by me on 6 August 2020: R v Ayuel [2020] ACTSC 213.

Facts

The facts were agreed and are set out in the Statement of Facts which was tendered. It should be noted that the agreed facts differ in some respects from those which provided the basis for sentencing in Mr Nyuon and Ms Ayuel’s cases. In summary, the agreed facts are as follows.

In the early hours of 2 October 2019 Mr Nyuon and the victim met up. Shortly before 3:00am they attended a service station in Gungahlin and purchased cigarettes. They subsequently went to a house in Moncrieff where they spent a number of hours. During this time, they consumed alcohol.

The victim had a dentist appointment in the city that day, so at approximately 7:30am he and Mr Nyuon attended Ms Ayuel’s house in Moncrieff. Ms Ayuel is the victim’s cousin. The victim intended to ask Ms Ayuel to drive him to the city for his appointment, on the basis that he would give her $18 as petrol money.

Despite Ms Ayuel being reluctant to allow the two men to enter her house,…

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 Saki

Details

AGLC: R v Saki [2020] ACTSC 270
Case: [2020] ACTSC 270
Decision Date: 7 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, Saki, was charged with unlawful confinement and possession of cannabis. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Saki pleaded guilty during the trial, which led to a discussion on the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The primary legal issues before the court involved determining the severity of the offence, the prospects for rehabilitation, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential consequences of deportation.

The court considered the objective seriousness of the offences, which was above the mid-range. It also evaluated the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, noting that Saki had good prospects. The court acknowledged Saki's limited criminal history and the risk of deportation. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. It found that the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ultimately sentenced Saki to imprisonment, considering the above mid-range of objective seriousness, the good prospects for rehabilitation, the limited criminal history, and the risk of deportation. This decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [52]

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.