Legal Research
Cases
R v Stanley

R v Stanley

Case [2015] ACTSC 322 12 October 2015

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v Stanley
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 322
Hearing Date(s):	9 October 2015
DecisionDate:	12 October 2015
Before:	Refshauge ACJ
Decision:	1. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the first assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 12 May 2014; 2. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment, to commence 18 February 2015 to take into account pre-sentence custody; 3. Patrick Stanley be convicted of damaging property on 12 May 2014; 4. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 1 year imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2016, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence for the first assault; 5. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the second assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 12 May 2014; 6. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year on the sentence for damaging property; 7. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the first offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent on 12 May 2014; 8. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to commence on 18 May 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year and 3 months on the sentence for the second assault; 9. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the second offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent on 12 May 2014; 10. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment to commence on 18 August 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year and 9 months on the sentence for the first offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent; 11. A non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months be set, to commence on 18 February 2015 and to end on 17 May 2018.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – sentencing – sexual intercourse without consent – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – damaging property – domestic violence – victim impact statement
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24(1), 54(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 403(1)
Cases Cited:	Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372 Halden (1983) 9 A Crim R 30 Knight v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 222 Milner v AW [2014] ACTSC 231 Roberts v Smorhun [2013] ACTSC 218 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734 R v Boudelah (1991) 28 FCR 176 R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31 R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Patrick Stanley (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Gul (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 207 of 2014 SCC 208 of 2014

REFSHAUGE ACJ:

Domestic violence is a scourge in the Australian community. It has become so problematic that significant efforts are being made at the Federal, State and Territory levels to address it.

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 Stanley

Details

AGLC: R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322
Case: [2015] ACTSC 322
Decision Date: 12 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stanley involved Patrick Stanley, who was convicted of multiple offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, damaging property, and engaging in sexual intercourse without consent. The incidents occurred on 12 May 2014, and the matter was heard in a relevant Australian court. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentences for each offence, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and their impact on the victim. The court also had to consider the cumulative effect of the sentences to ensure they were just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

The court deliberated on the seriousness of each offence, the harm caused to the victim, and the need to deter future criminal behaviour. In assessing the appropriate sentences, the court took into account the victim impact statement, which detailed the profound emotional and psychological damage suffered by the victim. The court emphasised the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and the need for sentences that reflect the severity of such crimes. The cumulative effect of the sentences was carefully calculated to ensure that Stanley would spend a significant period in custody, which would serve as a deterrent and facilitate his rehabilitation.

Following its deliberations, the court found Stanley guilty of the first assault occasioning actual bodily harm, damaging property, the second assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the first offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent, and the second offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent. The court imposed a series of cumulative sentences, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months. The sentences were designed to reflect the gravity of the offences and provide the victim with a sense of justice, while also aiming to rehabilitate Stanley and deter future criminal behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the first assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 12 May 2014;

2. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment, to commence 18 February 2015 to take into account pre-sentence custody;

3. Patrick Stanley be convicted of damaging property on 12 May 2014;

4. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 1 year imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2016, that is to be cumulative as to four months on the sentence for the first assault;

5. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the second assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 12 May 2014;

6. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year on the sentence for damaging property;

7. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the first offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent on 12 May 2014;

8. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to commence on 18 May 2016, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year and 3 months on the sentence for the second assault;

9. Patrick Stanley be convicted of the second offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent on 12 May 2014;

10. Patrick Stanley be sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment to commence on 18 August 2017, that is to be cumulative as to 1 year and 9 months on the sentence for the first offence of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent;

11. A non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months be set, to commence on 18 February 2015 and to end on 17 May 2018.

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 Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322

Most Recent Citation

Stafrace v Carter [2017] ACTSC 371

Cases citing this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Matas
[2024] ACTSC 234

…2] ACTSC 295 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Smith [2021] ACTSC 114 R v Smith (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 246 R v Snowden [2022] ACTSC 186 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Tonari [2014] NSWCCA 232 R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Um (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 115 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWC…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Parker
[2024] ACTSC 125

…2022] ACTSC 13 R v Parker [2021] ACTSC 57 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497 R v Wright [2019] ACTSC 146 Stevens v McCallum [2006] ACTCA 13 Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355 White v R [2016] NSWC…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny
[2023] ACTSC 286

…v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; 2001 A Crim R 369 R v Rogers [2021] ACTSC 355 R v Smith (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 246 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 R v West [2015] ACTSC 134 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 Ross v R [2012] NSWCCA 161 Stebb…
R v Carberry
[2022] ACTSC 208 Para 1

…particularly serious, though the assault was to the head, a particularly vulnerable part of the body: R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214 at [15]; R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [65].…
R v Rogers
[2021] ACTSC 355 Para 1

…cise of power and control over the victim — a form of coercive control. This is, of course, a typical part of family violence offences: R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [62].…
R v Fry
[2021] ACTSC 138

…No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 R v Naqvi [2016] ACTSC 345 R v Ndlovu [2017] ACTSC 244 R v Roux (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 361 R v Smith [2016] ACTSC 317 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v TL (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 289 R v Tonna (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 360 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 Smejlis v Matthews [2004] WASCA 158 Wong v The Queen […
R v Lyons (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 358

…s (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, 31 May 2010) R v Scott [2003] VSCA 55 R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v TL (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 289…
R v Pearson
[2020] ACTSC 375 Para 1

…sness of such an offence, where the assault is directed to the victim's head, the most vulnerable part of the body, has been discussed in R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [65].…
R v Tonna (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 360 Para 1

…hun at [120]-[127] and Goundar v Goddard [2010] ACTSC 56 at [32]-[36]. In relation to the assaults in the context of family violence, see R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [65]-[66].…
R v Elson
[2020] ACTSC 264 Para 1

…In relation to family violence offences, I also note the observations of Refshauge ACJ in R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [62]-[63], referring to the observations of Johnson J in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179 at 193 as to family violence being a serious problem in the community:…
R v Teer
[2019] ACTSC 334 Para 1

…In relation to family violence offences, I note the observations of Refshauge ACJ in R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [62]-[63], referring to the observations of Johnson J in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179 at 193 as to family violence being a serious problem in the community:…
R v EP (No 3)
[2019] ACTSC 242 Para 1

…In R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 ( Stanley ), the 20 year old offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of damaging property. The offender was found to have made some progress in terms of rehabilitation and found to…
R v NX (No 2)
[2019] ACTSC 131

…R v KD [2019] ACTSC 62 R v NO (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 37 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Wyper [2017] ACTSC 50 R v Wyper (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 103…
R v KD
[2019] ACTSC 62

…NO [2018] ACTSC 37 R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358 R v QG [2018] ACTSC 343 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Stevens (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 297 R v SV [2016] ACTSC 211 R v Tamawiwy (No 4) [2015] ACTSC 371 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 265 A Crim R 499 R v UG…
R v Saran
[2019] ACTSC 37

…o 2) [2018] ACTSC 37 R v Norris; Ex Parte Attorney-General (QLD) [2018] QCA 27 R v Palmer [2017] ACTSC 357 R v PM (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 358 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Stevens (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 297 R v SV [2016] ACTSC 211 R v Tamawiwy (No 4) [2015] ACTSC 371 R v UE [2016] QCA 58 R v US [2016] ACTSC 130 R v Ver…
Stafrace v Carter
[2017] ACTSC 371 Para 1

…ve routinely described such a circumstance as being a circumstance of aggravation: see R v Wyper [2017] ACTSC 50 at [31]-[32] and The Queen v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 at [66]. It is important to recognise however that the description of an offence of a family violence or domestic violence offence is really a conclu…

View all 16 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Knight v R
[2015] NSWCCA 222 Para 1

…rovided to me by way of sentencing practice. While noting the proper caution with which statistics must be viewed, as explained in Knight v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 222 at [86]-[89], I have had regard to the ACT sentencing database which is some very general guidance but no more than that. No sentencing principles, (…
Milner v A W
[2014] ACTSC 231 Para 1

…That there was no additional violence does not mitigate the offence; see Milner v AW [2014] ACTSC 231 at [9]. There can be no doubt that the earlier violence had so petrified the victim and shocked her that she was in no position to resist. Unprotected sex and ejaculation are usually regarded as aggravating the off…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2 Para 1

…d regard to the ACT sentencing database which is some very general guidance but no more than that. No sentencing principles, (see Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372 at 379; [38]), were provided to me.…
Roberts v Smorhun
[2013] ACTSC 218 Para 1

…ontext of a domestic relationship is an aggravating factor, although that will not always be so in the context of all offences. See Roberts v Smorhun [2013] ACTSC 218 at [133]-[135]. The victim was vulnerable because of those circumstances.…
R v DF (No 2)
[2012] ACTSC 3 Para 1

…tiations on 19 June 2015. It seems to me that a Notice Declining to Proceed should be filed in relation to the earlier indictments. See R v DF (No 2) (2012) 257 FLR 31 at 38; [45].…
R v Boudelah
[1991] FCA 144 Para 1

…tegrity is a serious intrusion into her personal life. The community speaks with one voice condemning such violence, for such it is. See R v Boudelah (1991) 28 FCR 176 at 186.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
33(1), 7 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
24(1), 54(1) 3 mentions (from Para 1)