R v Sanderson - [2016] ACTSC 277

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sanderson
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 277
Hearing Dates:	19 September 2016
DecisionDate:	19 September 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	(i) In relation to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 months to commence from 10 October 2015 and to end on 9 July 2016. (ii) In relation to the offence of forcible confinement, the offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years to commence from 10 October 2015 and to expire on 9 October 2018. (iii) The non-parole period is to commence on 10 October 2015 for a period of 1 year, 6 months and 9 days, and is to expire on 18 April 2017.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – co-offenders – guilty pleas – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – unlawful confinement – offender giving evidence against co-offenders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24(1), 34 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33(1)(za)
Cases Cited:	Barlow v The Queen [2012] VSCA 37 R v Anforth [2003] NSWCCA 222 R v Britt [2015] ACTSC 402 R v Catanzariti [2014] ACTSC 333 R v Dalton; R v Fleet [2014] ACTSC 204 R v Eimierl [2015] ACTSC 72 R v Flentjar [2008] NSWSC 771 R v Le Clair; R v Yeboah [2016] ACTSC 126
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jamie Sanderson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Daryl Perkins Solicitor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 234 of 2015

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

The offender was due to face trial this Wednesday (21 September 2016) on four counts in an indictment dated 10 March 2016. There are two co-accused to each of the counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 4 today. The Crown accepted the pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment against the offender.

The Crown and the offender have joined in requesting that the offender be sentenced today. This will facilitate with him giving evidence for the Crown in the trial against the co-offenders. Because of the urgency sought in the passing of a sentence, my judgment is necessarily brief, but hopefully will state the reasons behind the sentence imposed.

The offences

The offences to which the offender pleaded guilty are:

(a)That on 7 July 2015 at Canberra, he assaulted Adam Amos and thereby occasioned to him actual bodily harm in contravention of s 24(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence is 5 years.
(b)That on 7 July 2015 at Canberra, he unlawfully confined Adam Amos in contravention of s 34 of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence is 10 years.

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 Sanderson

Details

AGLC: R v Sanderson [2016] ACTSC 277
Case: [2016] ACTSC 277
Decision Date: 19 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sanderson, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and forcible confinement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case involved Sanderson and two co-offenders who were involved in an assault that resulted in actual bodily harm to the victim, as well as the unlawful confinement of the victim. Sanderson pleaded guilty to both charges.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including the appropriate sentences for each offence, and the appropriate non-parole period. The court also had to consider the fact that Sanderson had given evidence against his co-offenders, and whether this should be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offences with the fact that Sanderson had cooperated with the prosecution.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, which involved violence and the restriction of the victim’s freedom. However, the court also took into account Sanderson’s guilty pleas and his cooperation with the prosecution in giving evidence against his co-offenders. The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm was a period of imprisonment of 9 months, and for the forcible confinement, a period of imprisonment of 3 years. The non-parole period was set at 1 year, 6 months and 9 days, to commence on 10 October 2015 and to expire on 18 April 2017.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Sanderson to a period of imprisonment of 9 months for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and 3 years for the offence of forcible confinement, with a non-parole period of 1 year, 6 months and 9 days. The sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences, but also take into account Sanderson’s cooperation with the prosecution.

Orders

Orders of the court

(i) In relation to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 months to commence from 10 October 2015 and to end on 9 July 2016.

(ii) In relation to the offence of forcible confinement, the offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years to commence from 10 October 2015 and to expire on 9 October 2018.

(iii) The non-parole period is to commence on 10 October 2015 for a period of 1 year, 6 months and 9 days, and is to expire on 18 April 2017.

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.