R v Smith - [2016] ACTSC 330

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Smith
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 330
Hearing Date:	26 October 2016
DecisionDate:	26 October 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced of two years’ imprisonment suspended on offender entering into a good behaviour order for three years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – domestic violence – sole incident – significant self rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 12, 33, 35, 36 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90A
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Simon Thomas Smith (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms M Moss (Crown) Mr P Smith (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 163 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 12 March 2016 at Canberra, he recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on his partner. Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm is an offence against s 20 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of 13 years’ imprisonment.

The offender pleaded guilty at the twelfth mention before the Magistrates Court and the matter was committed to the Supreme Court under s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) (MCA). The prosecution case was strong. However, the plea had a high utilitarian value. Under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) I would have allowed a discount of 20% on the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed, but given the s 36 considerations I believe an appropriate total discount is up to 30%.

Facts

The offender and the victim had known each other for many years. In October 2015 they commenced a relationship and in November 2015 they became engaged. They lived in attached residences in Chifley. There was a door between the residences.

On the evening of 11 March 2016 the offender and the victim had been drinking with friends when the victim made a comment that upset the offender. The offender cried and then went for a 15-minute walk. Later that night, the offender and the victim resolved the issue.

On the following day, 12 March 2016, the offender and the victim spent the day together. In the early afternoon, they started drinking vodka. Later, they shared a joint of marijuana. They discussed sleeping in the nature reserve in Chifley. Eventually, the offender took his sleeping bag and went to sleep in the nature reserve by himself.

Later, the victim went into the offender’s room and saw a note that revealed that the offender was feeling “paranoid”. She used a mobile telephone to take a photograph of the note. She then went to the nature reserve to find the offender.

The victim woke the offender and questioned him about the note. The offender became very angry at being awoken and attacked the victim. He knocked her to the ground. He…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 330
Case: [2016] ACTSC 330
Decision Date: 26 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Smith, was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on another person. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Brown. The incident in question involved an altercation between the respondent and the victim, resulting in the victim suffering significant injuries. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge.

The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account various factors. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's background, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court also had to weigh the principles of deterrence and denunciation against the potential for rehabilitation.

The court delivered its judgment, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim. However, the court also noted that this was a sole incident of domestic violence and that the respondent had demonstrated significant self-rehabilitation since the incident. The court found that the respondent had shown remorse and had taken steps to address underlying issues. Considering all these factors, the court determined that a suspended sentence with conditions would be appropriate. The court sentenced the respondent to two years' imprisonment, suspended on the condition that the respondent entered into a good behaviour order for three years. This decision reflects the court's aim to balance punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced of two years’ imprisonment suspended on offender entering into a good behaviour order for three years.

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.