SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
R v UG
Citation:
[2020] ACTCA 8
Hearing Date:
4 February 2020
DecisionDate:
4 February 2020
ReasonsDate:
27 February 2020
Before:
Murrell CJ, Burns and Mossop JJ
Decision:
Appeal dismissed. See [84] and [97].
Catchwords:
APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal on sentence – Whether sentences manifestly inadequate – Whether reasons inadequate – Effect of sentence on family – Accumulation – Approach to sentencing family violence offences – Partly suspended sentence – Discretion to resentence
The Crown appealed against sentences imposed on the respondent by Elkaim J (the sentencing judge), asserting that the sentencing judge had failed to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offending conduct and that the sentences were manifestly inadequate: R v UG [2019] ACTSC 290 (UG).
On 4 February 2020, we dismissed the appeal and advised that reasons would be given at a later date. These are our reasons.
The offences were committed on 9 March 2019. On 10 March 2019, the respondent was arrested. He was charged with eight…
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 UG
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8
Case
[2020] ACTCA 8
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the adequacy of sentences imposed on the respondent, UG, for a series of family violence offences. The Crown appealed against the sentences, arguing they were manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Burns and Mossop JJ.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed were so inadequate as to be manifestly unjust, whether the sentencing judge’s reasons for imposing those sentences were insufficient, and how the court should approach the sentencing of family violence offences, particularly in relation to the accumulation of sentences and the potential for partly suspended sentences, considering the effect of the sentence on the offender's family.
The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing for family violence offences, noting the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of such conduct and to deter future offending. The judges reviewed the sentencing judge's reasons and the specific circumstances of the case, including the impact on the victim and the offender's family. They applied established sentencing principles, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of rehabilitation and the offender's personal circumstances. The Court ultimately found that the sentences, while perhaps lenient, were not so inadequate as to warrant intervention on appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal upholding the original sentences imposed on UG.