Simpson v Oliveira

Case [2018] ACTMC 28

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Simpson v Oliveira

Citation:

[2018] ACTMC 28

Hearing Dates:

5 July 2018

DecisionDate:

23 November 2018

Before:

Special Magistrate Hunter OAM

Decision:

See paragraphs [52]-[74]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTIC AND PROCEDURE – sentence - common assault – offences against the person – objective seriousness – section 17 non-conviction order – early plea of guilt - offender undergoing treatment for mental health and alcohol issues – offender engaged in restorative justice

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 334

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 17, 33

Balthazar v the Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257

Groessler v Gregoric-Ceballos [2017] ACTSC 124

Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507

Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26

R v Howell [2018] ACTSC 155

R v Leu [2009] ACTSC 5

R v Mills [2015] ACTSC 419

R v Ross [2011] ACTSC 211

Roseby v Harman [2014] ACTSC 125

Stark v Plant [2010] WASCA 7

Parties:

Daniel Simpson (Informant)

Julia Douglas Oliveira (Defendant)

Representation:

Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Informant)

Mr A Doig (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant)

Ben Aulich and Associates ( Defendant)

File Numbers:

CC18/2703; CC18/6683

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER

THE PROCEEDINGS

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault (CC18/2703) and one charge of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm (CC18/6683) on 5 July 2018, after pleading not guilty to both on 31 May 2018.

2.The factual circumstances are not in dispute and are largely contained in a compact disc recording of the incident. I have viewed that recording several times.

3.The circumstances surrounding the incident are these: at approximately 12:10 AM on 13 February 2018 the defendant was sitting at a table in the Mooseheads pub in Canberra. At approximately the same time both victims in this matter were dancing on the dance floor with friends on the ground level at Mooseheads.

4.The defendant is seen sitting at a table, she pushes a full glass of beer to the side of her and then for no apparent reason throws a glass in the vicinity of the dance floor. It does not appear that she threw it towards any particular person. However it somewhat incredibly struck two people who were dancing quite some distance apart.

5.It appears that it hit the first person, Ms Turner, on the nose in some form of glancing blow, and then struck Ms Pretorius on the right side of her head and her left shoulder causing a 2.5 cm laceration. This injury required Ms Pretorius to attend at Calvary Hospital for treatment.

6.After the defendant threw the glass she immediately left the bar and went outside but did not leave the area and was later identified after police viewed the CCTV footage. Police said to her “I watched CCTV of you throwing a glass at a girl causing a laceration to her shoulder” the defendant said “in Mooseheads?” Police arrested her and charged her…

Continue reading Simpson v Oliveira

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Simpson v Oliveira [2018] ACTMC 28
Case
[2018] ACTMC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simpson v Oliveira was brought before the court, where the defendant, Oliveira, appealed against the sentence imposed for a common assault conviction. The defendant had pleaded guilty to an offence of common assault against the complainant, Simpson. Oliveira's plea was entered early, and the court was also informed that Oliveira was undergoing treatment for mental health and alcohol issues, and had engaged in restorative justice with the victim. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in light of these circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed for the common assault was excessive or inappropriate, given the nature of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court considered whether the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offence, and whether it was necessary to deter Oliveira and others from committing similar offences. The court also considered the defendant's early plea of guilt, his engagement in restorative justice, and his ongoing treatment for mental health and alcohol issues.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the defendant's early plea of guilt, his engagement in restorative justice, and his ongoing treatment as mitigating factors. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was not excessive or inappropriate, given the nature of the offence and the need to deter Oliveira and others from committing similar offences. The court held that the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offence, and was necessary to achieve the aims of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The court ordered that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and that the original sentence imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The court also made orders for the costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant, Oliveira. The specific details of the sentence are set out in paragraphs [52] to [74] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [52]-[74]

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.