Legal Research
Cases
R v Sikoulabot

R v Sikoulabot

Case [2018] ACTSC 217 15 August 2018

Jurisdiction

Sentencing

Recklessly Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm

Intensive Corrections Order

Rehabilitation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sikoulabot
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 217
Hearing Date(s):	16 May 2018; 2 August 2018
DecisionDate:	15 August 2018
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [39].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – intensive corrections order assessment – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33
Cases Cited:	Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520. R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57 R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338 R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414 R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 24 R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 125 R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Anousone Sikoulabot (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Swan (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal on London (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 3 of 2018

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

On 11 January 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to an offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm per section 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The maximum penalty for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm is 13 years imprisonment.

Facts

The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts, which forms part of Exhibit 1.

On Sunday 22 October 2017, at approximately 12:14 am, the victim was walking down City Walk in Canberra City on his own after exiting the ‘Kite nightclub’ with his partner, who was at a nearby ATM. CCTV footage shows the victim to be slightly unsteady on his feet.

At around this time, the victim was approached by the offender. The victim recognised the offender but did not know him by name. At the sentence hearing, the offender gave evidence that he had previously met the victim during an altercation two to three months earlier, where the offender had tried to stop a friend from fighting the victim. The offender also gave evidence that he had played rugby against the victim.

The victim and the offender exchanged words. The offender later told police that during the exchange, the victim told the offender that he wanted to fight him. The offender then said “let’s go around the corner”. The victim was unable to recall what words were exchanged.

CCTV footage then shows, at approximately 12:15 am, the two men fighting. The offender is seen striking the victim a number of times before kneeing him in the head whilst the victim is on the ground. The offender then struck the victim on the back of the head twice with a…

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 Sikoulabot

Details

AGLC: R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217
Case: [2018] ACTSC 217
Decision Date: 15 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sikoulabot, was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than an intensive corrections order, given the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider all relevant factors in assessing whether an intensive corrections order was appropriate.

The court examined the principles guiding the imposition of an intensive corrections order, emphasizing the importance of considering the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. It noted that the trial judge had considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation but found that imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offence and to protect the community. The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment, as it was based on a comprehensive consideration of the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The court upheld the sentence of imprisonment, affirming that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in determining the most suitable sentence. It emphasised that while an intensive corrections order could be a viable alternative, the trial judge was not obliged to impose it if imprisonment was deemed necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and that the trial judge had not erred in their assessment of the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [39].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217

Most Recent Citation

R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261

Cases citing this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Wright; R v Edgerton
[2021] ACTSC 12 Para 1

…The defence also referred to the case of R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217, in which the 19-year-old offender was charged with an offence against s 20 of the Crimes Act . The offender engaged in a fight outside a nightclub. He struck the complainant several times, kicked him in the head, and struck the back of his he…
R v Douch
[2020] ACTSC 126 Para 1

…ray and assault but strong subjective circumstances. The sentence was 15 months suspended with 300 hours of community service. R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 involved an offender involved in a fight in which the victim got a broken jaw, chipped teeth and was knocked unconscious. The offender was 19 years old and h…
R v Kemppainen; R v Rose
[2020] ACTSC 69 Para 1

…The Court was taken to the decision of R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 ( Sikoulabot ), in which the offender was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order involving the performance of 250 hours of community service work. In that case, the victim had invited the offend…
R v Butters
[2019] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…Counsel for the offender referred to Myles , Hidic , Sharma, R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227 ( Dunn ) and R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 ( Sikoulabot ), and submitted that:…
R v Bailey
[2019] ACTSC 102

…R v RC (Unreported, Burns J, 19 October 2012) R v Rehinberger [2016] ACTSC 14 R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 R v Sullivan [2018] NSWDC 366 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406 Veen v R (No 2) (198…
R v Waghorn
[2019] ACTSC 72

…R v RC (Unreported, Burns J, 19 October 2012) R v Rehinberger [2016] ACTSC 14 R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406 R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC…
R v Yuen
[2019] ACTSC 70

…v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Sharpe [2006] NSWCCA 255 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 169 A Crim R 581 R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; 149 A Crim R…
R v Merritt
[2019] ACTSC 23

…R v RC (Unreported, Burns J, 19 October 2012) R v Rehinberger [2016] ACTSC 14 R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 265 A Crim R 499 R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 406 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4; 96 NSWLR 1…
R v Bandy
[2018] ACTSC 261

…2012) R v Rheinberger [2016] ACTSC 14 R v Rheinberger (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 307 R v Seretin [2016] ACTSC 45 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA…

View all 9 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

R v McNeill
[2018] ACTSC 125 Para 1

…In R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 125, the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault, and a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The offender punched the first victim in the face, then threw a punch at the victim which knocked the second victim unconscious, before immediately leaving the scen…
R v Chapman
[2018] ACTSC 57 Para 1

…In R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57, the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm in relation to an unprovoked strike to a victim which fractured the victim’s jaw, at a nightclub. The offender did have previous convictions for violent offences. The offender was sentenced to 15 m…
R v Kepaoa (No 2)
[2018] ACTSC 24 Para 1

…mitted an offence of common assault against a woman associated with the primary victim, by pushing her aggressively from behind. In R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 24, the offender was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment, served by way of Intensive Corrections Order, as well as 249 hours of community service, in ad…
R v Kepaoa
[2017] ACTSC 414 Para 1

…In R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414, Mossop J referred to a number of recent decisions, at [36]-[40] as follows:…
R v Dunn
[2017] ACTSC 227

…Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520. R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57 R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338 R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414 R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 24 R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 1…
R v Myles
[2017] ACTSC 194 Para 1

…offender’s conduct, and second, the relative seriousness of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. On this question, the prosecution referred to the nature of the decisive blow being a kick to…
R v Hill
[2016] ACTSC 310 Para 1

…As stated by Murrell CJ in R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 ( Hill ) where a person has very good prospects of rehabilitation, the Court, by supporting those prospects in the sentence imposed , thereby also addresses likely future harm to the community and protection of the community. It was also emphasised in Hill that s…
R v Sharma
[2016] ACTSC 180 Para 1

…d, the relative seriousness of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. On this question, the prosecution referred to the nature of the decisive blow being a kick to the jaw of the victim whilst…
R v EL
[2016] ACTSC 241

…he Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520. R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v Chapman [2018] ACTSC 57 R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338 R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227 R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241 R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414 R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 24 R v McNeill [2018] ACTSC 125 R v M…
R v Pham
[2015] HCA 39 Para 1

…Bare sentencing statistics provide limited assistance: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550. Statistics do not provide information about why sentences were fixed as they were in each case: Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 ( Hili) . There are a number of decisions of this court relating to offenders who…
R v Amosa
[2015] ACTSC 34 Para 1

…of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. On this question, the prosecution referred to the nature of the decisive blow being a kick to the jaw of the victim whilst he was in a vulnerable posi…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 1

…R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550. Statistics do not provide information about why sentences were fixed as they were in each case: Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 ( Hili) . There are a number of decisions of this court relating to offenders who inflicted grievous bodily harm on victims. The followi…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 1

…Relevantly, in Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 476, the High Court emphasised that the guideposts that are the purposes of sentencing sometimes point in different directions:…
R v Hidic
[2017] ACTSC 307 Para 1

…rst, the culpability of the offender’s conduct, and second, the relative seriousness of the grievous bodily harm sustained by the victim: R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307; R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180; R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34. On this question, the prosecution referred to the nature of the de…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 33, 7 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
20 2 mentions (from Para 1)