SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Stefanac |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 415 |
Hearing Date: | 30 October 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 30 October 2017 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [34] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – guilty plea – street fight – initial fight unprovoked – excessive self-defence during extended fight – offence inflicted permanent disability on the complainant – tip of finger bitten off – offender otherwise of good character – low risk of reoffending – sentence of imprisonment served by way of Intensive Corrections Order with a period of community service |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11(3) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Marijan Stefanac (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel D Sahu Khan (Crown) J Sabarwhal (Defendant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mark Fleming Lawyers (Defendant) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 258 of 2016 SCC 259 of 2016 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The offender, Marijan Stefanac, has pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The maximum penalty for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is 13 years’ imprisonment.
The plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment which also included a charge of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm and a charge of common assault which was transferred to this court under s 90B of the Magistrates Court 1930 (ACT). On the latter charge the Crown offered no evidence and it is therefore dismissed.
Facts
The incident that gave rise to the offence to which the offender has pleaded guilty occurred in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 6 February 2017. The complainant who was the victim of the offender’s assault had attended the Durham Castle Arms Pub and Grill at Green Square, Kingston, since approximately 11:30pm that Friday night where he had consumed alcohol.
At about 1:25am on Saturday 6 February 2017 the complainant rang his fiancée to give him a lift home.
The complainant’s fiancée arrived at the Durham Castle Arms Pub and Grill in Kingston at approximately 1:35am where she parked nearby and rang the complainant to tell him that she had arrived to pick him up. About five minutes later the complainant exited the Durham Castle Arms Pub and Grill and began walking down Jardine Street towards the offender. The complainant and the offender did not know each other.
As the complainant’s fiancée was driving towards where the complainant and offender were walking she wound down the driver’s side window of her car and called out to the complainant that she had arrived.
The complainant’s fiancée witnessed the offender and the complainant engaging in some sort of conversation. The complainant…
Continue reading R v Stefanac
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Stefanac [2017] ACTSC 415
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 415
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and whether the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account mitigating factors such as the defendant's otherwise good character and low risk of reoffending. The court had to determine if the sentence imposed was within the range of reasonable outcomes for this type of offence.
The High Court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, noting the seriousness of the offence and the permanent disability inflicted upon the complainant. The court recognised the mitigating factors, including Stefanac's otherwise good character and low risk of reoffending, but ultimately concluded that the sentence reflected a fair balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The sentence of imprisonment, served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order with a period of community service, was deemed to be a suitable outcome that addressed the needs of justice, the community, and the offender.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [34]
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.