R v Solomons - [2017] ACTSC 384

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Solomons
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 384
Hearing Date:	14 December 2017
DecisionDate:	14 December 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [11]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7 and 10 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 20
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Zachary John William Solomons (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms V Conliffe (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 236 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

On 31 August 2017, the offender entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to an offence of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm. The offence is contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 13 years imprisonment.

The facts behind the offence are as follows. On 29 April 2017, the offender was at the Cube nightclub. He punched a Mr Nagali twice in the face. This caused three of Mr Nagali’s teeth to be bent inwards. Another tooth was knocked out. The victim also sustained an undisplaced right nasal bone fracture as a result of the assault. The injuries are graphically depicted in the photographs forming part of exhibit A and continued to affect the victim for at least a month.

The history behind the assault is set out in the statement of facts. It arose out of a melee which had its origins in a misguided attempt to protect the honour of a woman on the dance floor. An unidentified male appears to have played a significant part in stirring up trouble. Mr Nagali also played a role in the events. On one reading of the statement of facts, and as confirmed by the CCTV footage, the assault was committed by the offender in an attempt to prevent Mr Nagali from attacking his friend.

The offender’s early plea of guilty has utilitarian value, which will be reflected in a discount of the sentence imposed.

The offender has no prior convictions. He was born in 1993 and is one of three children. He has lived in many different parts of Australia because his parents moved around due to their occupations.

After completing year 12, the offender obtained a Certificate IV in disability care. He has been employed primarily in this area and apparently enjoys his role as a support worker. He now works supporting autistic persons. He has a glowing reference from his employer (Exhibit 1).

The offender is a keen sportsperson, although he has not been participating recently due to injury. Unfortunately, he obviously drinks too much alcohol. It seems that he often spent up to $500 at a drinking session. The offender has some history of drug use, which also needs to be addressed. He has some significant mental health issues, which have led to self-harming behaviour. 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 Solomons

Details

AGLC: R v Solomons [2017] ACTSC 384
Case: [2017] ACTSC 384
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the matter of R v Solomons was heard, where the defendant was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant following his conviction for the offence. The defendant, Mr Solomons, had pleaded guilty to the charge of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to another individual. The Crown sought a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, while the defence argued for a more lenient penalty, considering mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate sentence for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court also had to consider relevant sentencing principles, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation of the offender.

The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in relevant statutes and case law. It noted the maximum penalty for the offence and the general principles of sentencing, such as the need for punishment and deterrence, and the importance of proportionality. The court also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's guilty plea, his remorse, and his otherwise good character. After weighing all the factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating circumstances. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that was deemed just and proportionate to the crime committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [11]

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.