The Queen v Peter Baldini - [2013] ACTSC 281

THE QUEEN v PETER BALDINI
[2013] ACTSC 281 (12 November 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – No matter of principle

Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7, Pt 4.2

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 31

Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R v Mears (1998) 101 A Crim R 329

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 127 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 12 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 271 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
V
PETER BALDINI

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  12 November 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

Peter Baldini is not serving, or liable to serve, a term of imprisonment for an offence other than the offences for which he is to be sentenced.

It has considered the Pre-Sentence Report about Peter Baldini and the other evidence adduced on sentence.

It is satisfied that Peter Baldini should be given an opportunity to address his criminal behaviour and the risk factors that have contributed to that behaviour before he be sentenced for the current offences.

It is satisfied that Peter Baldini may be released on bail under the Bail Act 1992 (ACT).

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Peter Baldini be convicted of aggravated burglary committed on 20 July 2012.

Peter Baldini be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 20 July 2012.

Peter Baldini not be sentenced for these offences at this time.

Peter Baldini appear at 9:30 am on 1 May 2014 to be sentenced for these offences.

Peter Baldini be granted bail to appear at 9:30 am on 1 May 2014 with the following conditions:

(a) that he be subject to the supervision of the Director General or her delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person delegated to supervise him, especially as to alcohol and other drug issues, including treatment and counselling and to addressing any anger management issues;

(b) that he attend, on or before 15 November 2013, at the offices of the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service (CADAS) 1 Moore Street, Canberra City to be assessed for and engaged in suitable treatment for drug use.

(c) that he abstain from the use of illicit drugs.

The Director General prepare a Pre-Sentence Report, under Pt 4.2 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), for the Court on 1 May 2014 to update the report of 7 November 2013, and to report on Mr Baldini’s compliance with the bail conditions.

CADAS prepare a report for the Court on 1 May 2014 to report on Mr Baldini’s alcohol and drug use and the steps Mr Baldini has taken to address those issues, with any recommendation as to options for further treatment…

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 Peter Baldini

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Peter Baldini [2013] ACTSC 281
Case: [2013] ACTSC 281
Decision Date: 12 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Peter Baldini, was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The charges arose from an incident in which the defendant unlawfully entered a dwelling and assaulted the occupant, causing injuries that were classified as actual bodily harm. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The central legal issues for the court were the appropriate punishment for the defendant's crimes and whether the sentence should reflect the aggravated nature of the burglary and the assault. The court considered the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact on the victim. The prosecution argued for a custodial sentence due to the severity of the crimes, while the defence urged the court to consider the defendant's guilty plea and the possibility of rehabilitation through non-custodial measures.

The court, after considering all relevant factors, determined that the offences warranted a custodial sentence. The judge noted the gravity of the aggravated burglary and the assault, which involved a significant breach of personal security and caused real harm to the victim. The court held that while the defendant's guilty plea was a mitigating factor, it was not sufficient to warrant a non-custodial sentence. The judge sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the need to deter such conduct and to protect the community. The court did not consider the matter to be of principle, meaning it did not have broader implications beyond the immediate case.

Orders