R v UG - [2019] ACTSC 290

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v UG
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 290
Hearing Date:	16 October 2019
DecisionDate:	16 October 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [19]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Damage property – Possess offensive weapon with intent – Common assault – Presence of children
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 32(1)(a), 381(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 403(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 90A, 90B Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 63(3) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7(1)
Cases Cited:	R v HC [2018] ACTSC 49
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) UG (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) J Maher (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 200 of 2019; SCC 201 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 13 August 2019 the offender entered pleas of guilty to three charges in the Magistrates Court. The charges were committed for sentence under s 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). The charges and their maximum penalties are:

(a) Damaging property over $1,000 in value (CC2019/3061) contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $160,000, 10 years imprisonment or both;

(b) Aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving (CC2019/3063) contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $48,000, 3 years imprisonment or both, as well as an automatic disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months under s 63(3) of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT); and

(c) Making a demand with threat to kill (CC2019/3746) contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment.

Three other offences were transferred as related charges under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act (ACT). Pleas of guilty were also entered to those charges on 13 August 2019. The charges and their maximum penalties are:

(a) Two charges of common assault (CC2019/3064; CC2019/3065) contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment; and

(b) One charge of possession of an offensive weapon with intent (CC2019/3747) contrary to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,000, 1 year imprisonment or both.

The facts of the offences describe domestic violence at its worst. The offender terrified his partner with an axe. He swung it dangerously close to her head. He used it to break assorted items in the home. He drove a car with his four children in it at dangerous speeds. He threatened one of his children with the axe and told his partner to get into the car or he would use the axe on the child.

The first charge of common assault…

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

Details

AGLC: R v UG [2019] ACTSC 290
Case: [2019] ACTSC 290
Decision Date: 16 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v UG involved a criminal prosecution where the defendant was found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon with intent, damaging property, and common assault. The defendant was also found to have committed these offences in the presence of children. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Connolly. The defendant, UG, was sentenced following a plea of guilty to the charges.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant for the serious nature of the offences, particularly considering the presence of children during the commission of the crimes. The court was required to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation in sentencing.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victims and the community. Justice Connolly emphasised the importance of protecting children from exposure to violent and criminal behaviour. The court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea and cooperation but noted the need to send a strong message to deter similar behaviour in the future. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to protect the community.

In its judgment, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for the defendant. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in paragraph [19] of the judgment, which included the term of imprisonment and any additional orders or conditions imposed by the court. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [19]

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.