R v Todkill - [2018] ACTSC 182

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Todkill
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 182
Hearing Dates:	13 December 2017; 28 February 2018; 13 March 2018
DecisionDate:	13 March 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [21]-[23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offence of causing grievous bodily harm – significant violence – in company – conditional liberty –Pre-Sentence Report – remorse – willingness to participate in restorative justice – psychologist’s report – victim impact statements – testimonials – reasonable to good prospects for rehabilitation – youth – plea of guilty – deterrence – objectives of sentencing – sentence of full-time imprisonment – non-parole period – breach of good behaviour order
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Hayden Todkill (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms R Christensen (Crown) Mr R Davies (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Respondent)
File Number:	SCC 284 of 2016

Burns J

Hayden Todkill, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of causing grievous bodily harm. The short description of the offence is that you punched the victim on three occasions causing a comminuted fracture of the right jaw. The maximum penalty for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm is five years' imprisonment.

I note that you were first charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, which is an offence that carries a penalty of 13 years' imprisonment, on 3 March 2016 in the Magistrates Court. On 14 December 2016 you were committed for trial before this court. On 15 May 2017 your matter was listed for trial on 11 September 2017. On 6 September 2017 negotiations between your legal advisers and the Crown resulted in the Crown filing a fresh indictment with one count of causing grievous bodily harm. On that day you pleaded guilty to the new indictment.

A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered in your sentence hearing. I will not now recite in detail the facts in relation to the offence. It is sufficient to note that the offence was unprovoked in any physical sense. There may well have been some offensive language used by the victim but that language was not directed towards you and the evidence shows that you were never under any potential threat with respect to the victim.

The offence involved significant violence. There were three punches thrown by yourself which had sufficient force to fracture the victim's jaw and also to render the victim unconscious. The grievous bodily harm which was caused to the victim, whilst serious, was not amongst the worst types of injuries that would fall under the description of grievous bodily harm.

I note that you were in company at the time that you committed this offence and also that the offence was committed in a public place. It is a significant aggravating circumstance in relation to the offence that you were on conditional liberty at the time that it occurred.

[Redacted.]

A Pre-Sentence Report was prepared for the sentence hearing.…

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 Todkill

Details

AGLC: R v Todkill [2018] ACTSC 182
Case: [2018] ACTSC 182
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Todkill, the defendant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm to a victim in circumstances involving significant violence and occurring in the company of others. The matter was heard in the higher courts of Australia. The central issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The court was tasked with weighing the defendant's remorse, his willingness to participate in restorative justice, and the psychologist's report, alongside the victim impact statements and testimonials provided. Additionally, the court needed to consider the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence and rehabilitation, especially given the defendant's age and his plea of guilty.

The court examined the pre-sentence report and assessed the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were deemed to be reasonable to good. The court also took into account the breach of a previous good behaviour order. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a sentence of full-time imprisonment was warranted. The judge concluded that the offence involved significant violence and occurred in company, which necessitated a custodial sentence to adequately address the objectives of sentencing, particularly deterrence and protection of the community. The court set a non-parole period, reflecting the severity of the offence and the need for the defendant to serve a specific term before being considered for parole.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of full-time imprisonment with a specified non-parole period. The judge also noted the importance of the defendant participating in programs aimed at rehabilitation and restorative justice during his incarceration. The court's decision underscored the necessity of a balanced approach to sentencing, considering both punitive and rehabilitative aspects, while also addressing the impact on the victim and the broader community.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [21]-[23]

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.