R v Walters (No 2) - [2018] ACTSC 139

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Walters (No 2)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 139
Hearing Dates:	30 January, 8 May 2018
DecisionDate:	8 May 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [34]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – breach of good behaviour order – not suitable for intensive correction order – good behaviour order cancelled – re-sentenced – sentenced to imprisonment for all charges
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20
Cases Cited:	R v Walters [2014] ACTSC 225
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Brian Walters (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Sahn Khan (Crown) A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecution (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 201 of 2012 SCC 62 of 2013 SCC 57 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Brian Gregory Walters has pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. On New Year’s Eve 2015, the offender repeatedly punched the victim in the face causing serious injuries. A conviction for this offence puts the offender in breach of a three year good behaviour order entered into on 26 August 2014.

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.

Facts

The facts were agreed and set out in a Statement of Facts dated 3 August 2017. On 31 December 2015, the victim and his partner attended the offender’s flat. The victim’s brother, who knew the offender, also attended. They attended to celebrate New Year’s Eve. The offender annoyed the victim during the evening, calling him names and punching his arm. This escalated to an argument in the lounge room where the victim called the offender a “big fat fucking paedophile”. Having regard to the personal history of the offender, the insult directed towards him was a significant provocation. The offender told the victim to get out of his flat. The victim made his way to the front door. The offender put him in a headlock. The victim broke free and told the offender to “fuck off”. The victim exited the unit and ran down two flights of stairs. The offender followed him. The victim ran to the opposite side of the driveway and remonstrated with the offender, waving his arms around and saying “come on, come on”. The victim ran towards Hindmarsh Drive across a nature strip. The offender caught up to the victim on the footpath adjacent to Hindmarsh Drive. He grabbed his shoulder and threw him to the ground. He straddled him with his knees either side of his body, held his throat with his left hand and with his right delivered about 12 forceful punches to the victim’s face. The offender was screaming at the victim while he punched him. This was observed by the victim’s brother and the victim’s partner. It was also observed by other residents of the housing complex.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Walters (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] ACTSC 139
Decision Date: 8 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Walters (No 2), the respondent, Walters, faced sentencing for charges including recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and breaching a good behaviour order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issues before the court were whether Walters was suitable for an intensive correction order and, if not, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court also had to consider the cancellation of the good behaviour order and the appropriateness of the sentence for the grievous bodily harm charge.

The court found that Walters was not suitable for an intensive correction order, primarily due to his history of non-compliance with previous orders and his potential for reoffending. In the sentencing for the grievous bodily harm charge, the court took into account the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence. The breach of the good behaviour order was deemed significant enough to warrant a new sentence. Consequently, the court cancelled the existing good behaviour order and re-sentenced Walters to imprisonment for all charges, considering the totality of his offending and the need to protect the community.

The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the principles of sentencing, focusing on both punishment and deterrence. The final orders, as outlined in the judgment, mandated that Walters serve a term of imprisonment for all charges, effectively addressing the breaches and the grievous bodily harm committed.

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.