Legal Research
Cases
R v Wright; R v Edgerton

R v Wright; R v Edgerton

Case [2021] ACTSC 12 2 February 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wright; R v Edgerton
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 12
Hearing Date:	2 February 2021
DecisionDate:	2 February 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Wright sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. Edgerton received an indicative sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, to be fully suspended if he continues rehabilitation in the community.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – Joint commission – Parity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 36 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 20
Cases Cited:	Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29 R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281 R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] ACTSC 35 R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 R v Kemppainen; R v Rose [2020] ACTSC 69 R v Kemppainen(No 2) [2020] ACTSC 159 R v Po’oi [2018] ACTSC 364 R v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11 R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228 R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Sikoulabot [2018] ACTSC 217 R v Torbert [2015] ACTSC 331 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8 Subasic v Williams [2018] ACTSC 207
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Jennie Louise Wright ( Offender) Brandon Ashley Edgerton ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe ( Crown) B Morrisroe ( Offender Wright) J Robertson ( Offender Edgerton)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Boxall Legal ( Offender Wright) JDR Law ( Offender Edgerton)
File Numbers:	SCC 138, 187 of 2020

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

Each offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 24 February 2020, they intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on the complainant, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years' imprisonment.

Ms Wright has spent 132 days in custody solely referrable to the offence, from her arrest on 15 March 2020 until 24 July 2020 when she was granted bail.

On 24 July 2020, Ms Wright entered a plea of guilty in the Supreme Court after the matter had been committed for trial but before all committal documentation had been filed. The plea was entered in the context of a strong prosecution case. Mr Edgerton had provided a detailed version of events to police, the complainant had identified Mr Barron as the attacker, and recorded telephone conversations revealed Ms Wright's participation in the offence. The appropriate discount is about 20 per cent.

Mr Edgerton has spent no time in custody in relation to this matter.

He entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity and would ordinarily receive a discount of 25 per cent for the early plea. In addition, as the Crown accepted, he is entitled to a discount under s 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act) for his assistance to the authorities in providing…

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 Wright; R v Edgerton

Details

AGLC: R v Wright; R v Edgerton [2021] ACTSC 12
Case: [2021] ACTSC 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennie Louise Wright and Brandon Ashley Edgerton were convicted for their involvement in the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on a complainant, as per section 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The legal issues the court needed to address included the objective seriousness of the offence, the culpability of each offender, the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the complainant, and the subjective circumstances of the offenders. The court also had to consider the principle of parity and the sentencing purposes relevant to each offender.

In its reasoning, the court first assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, taking into account the culpability of the offenders and the degree of harm caused. Ms Wright was found to be significantly culpable due to her role in planning the attack and ensuring the complainant's attendance at the house. Mr Edgerton's culpability was considered lesser, as he did not actively participate in the planning and had expressed reluctance to participate on the day of the incident. The court also examined the subjective circumstances of the offenders, including their backgrounds, criminal history, and rehabilitation prospects. Ms Wright, a mother of eight children with a history of mental health issues, was deemed to have good prospects of rehabilitation, while Mr Edgerton, who had a difficult childhood and was currently undergoing rehabilitation, was considered to have even better prospects.

Considering the principle of parity, the court acknowledged that the offenders played different roles in the offence and had different backgrounds and circumstances. While Ms Wright had a greater role and responsibility for the offence, Mr Edgerton's youth, childhood disadvantage, and good rehabilitation prospects warranted a greater discount on sentence. Consequently, the court decided to impose a sentence that would be served in the community for Ms Wright, while for Mr Edgerton, the court opted for a suspended sentence to allow him to continue his rehabilitation in the community.

The court sentenced Ms Wright to two years' imprisonment, to be served by intensive correction in the community, taking into account her role in the offence, her prospects of rehabilitation, and the impact of imprisonment on her children. Mr Edgerton received an indicative sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, which will be fully suspended if he continues to demonstrate rehabilitation in the community over the period of court supervision. The court also imposed a good behaviour order on Mr Edgerton for a period of 18 months, with additional conditions for supervision by ACT Community Corrections or their delegates.

Orders