R v Watson - [2014] ACTSC 395

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Watson
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 395
Hearing Date(s):	16 December 2014
DecisionDate:	18 December 2014
Before:	Walmsley AJ
Decision:	See [31]-[35].
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against the person – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfully choke – accused pleaded guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael John Watson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mr M Fleming (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 55, 56 and 132 of 2014

WALMSLEY AJ:

Background

Michael John Watson, who was born on 3 April 1973 and is aged 41, appears for sentence. He pleaded guilty to counts one (intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm), three (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) and five (act endangering life) on an indictment for offences involving Ms Fizelle. Those pleas were made on 3 September 2014. As well as dealing with him for those offences, I am to sentence him in respect of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Mr Belmonte in respect of which he was committed to this court under section 90A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) on 18 March 2014.

Facts

The facts which gave rise to these matters (which come from the statement of facts tendered by the Crown) are as follows. The offender was in a relationship with Ms Fizelle. As at 28 December 2013 they had been in a relationship for about a year. She had become pregnant to him about 12 weeks before 28 December. At some time after 2 pm on 28 December, Ms Fizelle was asleep at the offender's residence at Narrabundah, when she was awoken by him. When she awoke she became aware he was pressing a knife over the knuckles of her left hand, and saying "I'm going to cut your fingers off and you're never going to play the violin. You've got five seconds to get out or I'll kill you."

At the time, she understood that he believed she had been unfaithful to him.

She left the premises and sought refuge at a neighbour's unit. The neighbour was Mr Belmonte. A short time after she arrived there, the offender also entered Mr Belmonte’s unit. When he entered, Ms Fizelle and Mr Belmonte were sitting on a couch. The offender began verbally abusing Ms Fizelle. He called her a slut and a whore, and said, "You should kill yourself, you don't deserve this baby. The thing inside you is going to be killed" (referring to her then pregnancy).

The offender then grabbed her by the throat and lifted her up, such that her feet were not touching the floor. He held her against the wall in the lounge room. That manoeuvre caused her difficulty with breathing and speaking. He then said, "You're an alcoholic slut, bitch, and I…

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 Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Watson [2014] ACTSC 395
Case: [2014] ACTSC 395
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Watson, the accused was brought before the court on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The incident in question involved the accused intentionally choking the victim, resulting in significant harm. The accused entered a guilty plea to the charge. The matter was heard in the relevant court, where the legal issues surrounding the nature of the assault and the appropriate sentencing were examined.

The court was required to determine the appropriate legal characterization of the assault. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the act of choking constituted an assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the relevant statutes and to what extent the accused's actions were intentional and unlawful. Furthermore, the court had to consider the appropriate sentencing in light of the accused's plea and the circumstances of the offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the severity of the act of choking, which was intentional and resulted in actual bodily harm to the victim. The court noted the gravity of the assault and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. After considering the principles of sentencing and the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and aimed to protect the community. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

The final orders included a custodial sentence for the accused, along with any applicable fines and orders for rehabilitation programs. The specific details of the sentence were outlined in the court's written reasons, providing clarity on the terms and conditions of the sentence imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [31]-[35].

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.