"And What is New for 2021" in the Current Issues section of the Australian Law Journal (2021) 95 ALJ 9
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Benjamin Joseph Taber (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation:
Solicitors: Ms L Hanshaw (for the Crown) Mr Z Tankard (for the Apellant)
File Number(s):
2020/178765
Publication restriction:
No
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
Wagga Wagga Local Court
Date of Decision:
25 January 2021
File Number(s):
2020/178765
Judgment
The appellant, Benjamin Joseph Taber appeals against the severity of an aggregate sentence of 20 months with a non-parole period of 10 months imposed at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 25 January 2021 in respect of a total of six charges of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm which are incidents of domestic violence.
In chronological order the offences are as pleaded in the Court Attendance Notices:
H74882218 Sequence 1:
That (he) on 4 May 2020 at Lloyd (in the State of New South Wales) did assault Rachel Taber thereby occasioning to her actual bodily harm, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900, and further
Sequence 2:
That (he) on 11 May 2020 at Lloyd (in the State of New South Wales) did…
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 Taber v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taber v R [2021] NSWDC 60
Case
[2021] NSWDC 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Taber appealed against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which arose from an incident of domestic violence. The Local Court Magistrate had found Taber guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. Taber challenged the severity of the sentence, emphasising his lack of criminal history, expressions of remorse, and the potential for rehabilitation. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
The court examined the principles of sentencing for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, particularly in the context of domestic violence. The court considered the factors presented by both parties, including Taber’s personal circumstances and the impact of the assault on the victim. The Crown submitted that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need to deter similar offences in the future. Taber’s legal representatives argued that the sentence should take into account his background and the mitigating factors present in his case.
After weighing the competing submissions, the court determined that the sentence imposed by the Local Court Magistrate was appropriate. The court found that while Taber had no criminal history and had shown remorse, the severity of the assault and the need for general deterrence warranted a custodial sentence. The court was satisfied that the Magistrate had considered all relevant factors and had imposed a sentence that balanced the interests of justice and public safety. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Local Court Magistrate were confirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed, orders of Local Court Magistrate confirmed.