The Queen v In - [2001] ACTSC 102

THE QUEEN v IN [2001] ACTSC 102 (2 November 2001)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – unlawful confinement and assault occasioning actual bodily harm – offences committed on wife after marital separation – aggravating features included threats to kill children – offences committed by prisoner of previously good character, suffering from psychological illness who broke off his violent conduct – subsequent plea of guilty and genuine remorse – need to protect community from such offences – relevance of subjective factors.

Crimes Act 1900, s 429A

No. SCC 88 of 2001

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 2 November 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 88 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN
v

IN

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  2 November 2001
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

On the charge of unlawfully detaining his wife the prisoner be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years.

On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm the prisoner be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years.

Both sentences be served concurrently.

A non-parole period of eighteen months be imposed.

Both the sentences and the non-parole period be backdated to 27 February 2001 when the prisoner was first taken into custody.

The prisoner pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful confinement and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Both assaults were committed upon his wife whilst several children were present in the house and I directed that there be no publication of his name, lest the wife and children suffer further distress by being indirectly identified by any publicity.

Both offences occurred in the early hours of 27 February 2001. The prisoner and his wife had separated on 7 February 2001 and he had moved out of the family home. During the ensuing weeks he visited the house to see his children and occasionally stayed overnight, sleeping in his son’s bedroom. During the evening before the offences he stayed at the house to mind the children whilst his wife attended a meeting at the children’s school. She was subsequently driven home by the school Principal and they kissed before she left his car. Whilst they had stopped about four doors down the street, the prisoner had been waiting outside for his wife to return and saw this occur. He proceeded to ask her about her relationship with the Principal and an argument developed. The prisoner then left the house and his wife showered and went to bed.

During the early hours of the morning the prisoner returned to the house and knocked on a window. His wife let him into the house in the expectation that he was again intending to stay overnight in his son’s room and returned to her own bedroom. The prisoner then entered her bedroom, closed the door behind him and proceeded to sit on top of her with his legs on either side of her stomach. He placed a sharp object…

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 In

Details

AGLC: The Queen v In [2001] ACTSC 102
Case: [2001] ACTSC 102
Decision Date: 2 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant who unlawfully confined and assaulted his wife after their separation. The offences were committed against a backdrop of threats to kill the children. The offender, previously of good character and suffering from a psychological illness, broke off his violent conduct and subsequently pleaded guilty, demonstrating genuine remorse. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, the subjective factors involved, and the need to protect the community.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the gravity of the offences, the offender's psychological condition, his prior good character, the genuine remorse shown, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court had to weigh these factors to ensure the sentence was just and appropriate.

The court considered the severity of the unlawful confinement and assault, the threats made towards the children, and the offender's previous good character. It also took into account the offender's psychological condition and the remorse shown. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the community and deter similar offences, while also considering the offender's personal circumstances. The court sentenced the offender to a term of six years for the charge of unlawfully detaining his wife.

Orders

Orders of the court

On the charge of unlawfully detaining his wife the prisoner be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years.

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.