R v Sean (a pseudonym) - [2022] ACTSC 201

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sean (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 201
Hearing Date:	29 July 2022
DecisionDate:	9 August 2022
Before:	McCallum CJ
Decision:	(1) The young person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 13 months commencing on 10 October 2021 and expiring on 9 November 2022, suspended immediately upon his undertaking to comply with his good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 for a period of 24 months commencing on 9 August 2022 and expiring on 8 August 2024; (2) The conditions of the good behaviour order referred to in order (1) are the core conditions listed in s 86 of the Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act and that the young person accept supervision and comply with any reasonable direction given by the Director General of Child and Youth Protective Services.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –suspended sentence – good behaviour order – offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – extra-curial punishment – youth – late guilty plea – where young person suffers from ADHD and depression
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 375(16) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Ch 8A; ss 7(1), 36(2), 53(1)(b), 133C, 133D, 133G(3) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 86
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 MT v the Queen [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 26 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v Payne-Moore [2021] ACTSC 125 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240 Stott v the Queen [2021] ACTCA 18
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Wren Sean (a pseudonym) (Young person)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen SC (Crown) D Barrow (Young person)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hugo Law Group (Young person)
File Number:	SCC 132 of 2021

McCALLUM CJ:

These criminal proceedings arise out of a fight between two groups of young men at the Weston Creek Skate Park on the night of 26 September 2020. Two of the men, who were cousins, were stabbed during the fight. One survived, one did not.

The young person before the Court, Wren Sean (a pseudonym) was accused of stabbing both men. On 26 April 2022, he was arraigned on an indictment containing one count of murder contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and one count of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Act. He pleaded guilty to the count of inflicting grievous bodily harm but not guilty to the count of murder. After a trial that proceeded over six weeks, the jury acquitted the young person of murder. It remains to sentence him for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 13 years. The maximum penalty stands as a yardstick and must be taken into account in the manner explained in the decision of the High…

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 Sean (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Sean (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 201
Case: [2022] ACTSC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v Sean (a pseudonym) involved a dispute concerning the sentencing of the young person, Wren Sean, who was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm during a violent altercation at the Weston Creek Skate Park. Sean had been invited to join a prearranged fight between two groups of young men and, during the fight, he stabbed a victim causing grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence taking into account Sean's age, mental health issues, and the nature of the offence. The legal issues centred on the principles of youth justice, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the appropriate balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

The Court considered various factors including the young person's age, his mental health conditions such as ADHD and depression, the impulsive nature of the offence, and the impact of the offence on the victim. The Court also took into account the period Sean had already spent in custody on remand and the extra-curial punishment he had suffered. The Court held that Sean's mental health issues had contributed to his offending behaviour and his moral culpability was therefore diminished. However, the use of a knife during the fight aggravated the seriousness of the offence.

The Court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment would not be in the best interest of Sean's rehabilitation and opted for a combination sentence of a suspended term of imprisonment and a Good Behaviour Order. The sentence was partly suspended and backdated to account for the time Sean had already spent in custody and under onerous bail conditions. The Court imposed a Good Behaviour Order for 24 months, requiring Sean to comply with specific conditions and accept supervision by the Director General of Child and Youth Protective Services.

The final orders were that Sean was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 months, commencing on 10 October 2021 and expiring on 9 November 2022, suspended immediately upon his compliance with good behaviour obligations for a period of 24 months. The conditions of the Good Behaviour Order included the core conditions specified in s 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) and acceptance of supervision by the Director General of Child and Youth Protective Services.

Orders