The Queen v El - [2014] ACTSC 57

THE QUEEN v EL
[2014] ACTSC 57 (20 February 2014)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm – Young offender

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 19
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 64, Pt 8A

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45

GAS v The Queen (2004) 212 CLR 198
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v C V [2013] ACTCA 22
R v Govinden (2001) 127 A Crim R 331
R v J W [2010] NSWCA 49
R v Pham and Lee (1991) 55 A Crim R 128

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 321 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 20 February 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 321 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R
V
E L

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  20 February 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

EL be convicted of aiding and abetting GM in the commission of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Taylor Hazell on 1 June 2011.

EL be sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment.

The sentence be suspended for two years from 20 February 2014.

EL sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years with a condition that he perform 100 hours of community service work within twelve months.

On 1 June 2011, Taylor Hazell was set upon and bashed and stabbed fifteen times, necessitating two immediate operations and two further operations later in June. He was left with permanent scarring. A number of young men were at the premises when the attack occurred, including the accused, EL, who was charged with a very serious offence of attempted murder.

On this charge, he was committed for trial to this court on 29 September 2011. On 8 November 2013, however, a further indictment was presented, charging EL with aiding and abetting GM in the commission of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr Hazell. He pleaded guilty to that charge on 11 November 2013, a very early plea to the offence.

Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm is an offence under s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act), for which the maximum penalty is fifteen years’ imprisonment. Under s 45 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code), a person who aids and abets the commission of an offence by someone else is taken to have committed the offence and is punishable as if he or she had the committed the offence. Thus, EL is liable to a maximum penalty of fifteen years’ imprisonment. As can be seen from the maximum penalty prescribed the legislature, this is to be regarded as a very serious offence. See Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31].

The facts

The events…

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 The Queen v El

Details

AGLC: The Queen v El [2014] ACTSC 57
Case: [2014] ACTSC 57
Decision Date: 20 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, EL, was charged with aiding and abetting GM in the commission of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Taylor Hazell on 1 June 2011. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central issue before the court was whether EL had assisted GM in intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim, and if so, what sentence should be imposed. The court had to determine the appropriate level of culpability for EL in the offence and consider the principles of sentencing, particularly given EL's status as a young offender.

The court examined the evidence presented to establish EL's involvement in the offence. It was found that EL had indeed played a role in aiding and abetting GM, though the extent of his involvement was less than GM's. The court considered various factors including the nature of the offence, EL's age, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged EL's remorse and his prospects for rehabilitation, which were mitigating factors. However, it also recognised the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that while EL was a young offender, his actions warranted a significant penalty that would also serve as a deterrent.

Following the determination of EL's culpability, the court imposed a sentence of twenty months’ imprisonment, to be suspended for two years from 20 February 2014. In addition to the suspended sentence, EL was required to sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations for two years, including performing 100 hours of community service within twelve months. This approach was deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The orders made by the court were that EL be convicted of the offence, be sentenced to twenty months' imprisonment suspended for two years, and sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations, which included community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. EL be convicted of aiding and abetting GM in the commission of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Taylor Hazell on 1 June 2011.

2. EL be sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment.

3. The sentence be suspended for two years from 20 February 2014.

4. EL sign an undertaking to comply with the offenders good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years with a condition that he perform 100 hours of community service work within twelve months.

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.