R v Stefanac

Case [2017] ACTSC 415


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)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 42

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B

Cases Cited:

R v Dunn [2017] ACTSC 227

R v EL [2016] ACTSC 241

R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307

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

  1. The offender, Marijan Stefanac, has pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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. 

  1. At about 1:25am on Saturday 6 February 2017 the complainant rang his fiancée to give him a lift home.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Stefanac [2017] ACTSC 415
Case
[2017] ACTSC 415
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stefanac involved the defendant Stefanac and the Crown. Stefanac was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on the complainant during a street fight. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The initial altercation was unprovoked, but the fight escalated, and Stefanac's actions resulted in the complainant suffering permanent disability, including the loss of the tip of a finger. Stefanac pleaded guilty and the lower court sentenced him to imprisonment, which was to be served through an Intensive Corrections Order and a period of community service.

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.