Yeats v Stevens - [2019] ACTMC 4

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Yeats v Stevens
Citation:	[2019] ACTMC 4
Hearing Date:	8 February 2019
DecisionDate:	12 February 2019
Before:	Magistrate Theakston
Decision:	See paragraph [39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Family violence – Multiple offences.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26, 28, 116
Cases Cited:	O’Brien v The Queen[2015] ACTCA 47 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Parties:	Katherine Yeats (Informant) Andrew Benjamin Stevens (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Ms L Sutton (Informant) Mr R Chasland (Defendant)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 6924 of 2018 CC 13773 of 2018 CC 6926 of 2018 CC 6929 of 2018 CC 10069 of 2018 CC 12535 of 2017 CC 12534 of 2017 CC 6932 of 2018 CC 13778 of 2018 CC 6935 of 2018

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Background

The defendant is before the court for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

22 September 2017
(a)CC 6924 of 2018 – intentionally and unlawfully did strangle another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Between 22 & 29 September 2017
(b)CC 13773 of 2018 – assault, contrary to s 26 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
27 October 2017
(c)CC 6926 of 2018 – assault and thereby occasion actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
29 October 2017
(d)CC 6929 of 2018 – assault and thereby occasion actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
9 November 2017
(e)CC10069 of 2018 - assault and thereby occasion actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
14 November 2017
(f)CC 12535 of 2017 – assault, contrary to s 26 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
(g)CC 12534 of 2017 – other than by fire or explosive intentionally damage property, contrary to s 116(3) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
6 December 2018
(h)CC 6932 of 2018 – intentionally and unlawfully choke another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
(i)CC 13778 of 2018 – assault, contrary to s 26 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Between 4 & 7 March 2018
(j)CC 6935 of 2018 – assault and thereby occasion actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)

The defendant entered those pleas of guilty on the morning of the first day of a three-day hearing. The defendant did not communicate that change in his position before the hearing. There were seven civilian witnesses and 10 police witnesses, including the defendant’s partner who attended court expecting to give evidence. The briefs of evidence would have been prepared and court time had been allocated. The pleas of guilty were entered at a very late stage and provided only limited utilitarian benefit. However, ultimately witnesses did not need to give evidence and this is of some significance, particularly for the defendant’s former partner. Due to the scale of the allegations, I estimate that the defendant’s pleas of guilty saved his former partner from spending a considerable period…

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 Yeats v Stevens

Details

AGLC: Yeats v Stevens [2019] ACTMC 4
Case: [2019] ACTMC 4
Decision Date: 12 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeats v Stevens involved a dispute over sentencing in relation to family violence offences. The appellant, Yeats, was convicted of a series of domestic violence offences, including assault and threats. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose on the appellant, considering the nature and severity of the offences and the principles of sentencing in family violence cases. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of rehabilitation and the protection of the victim.

The court considered various factors, including the appellant's criminal history, the impact of the offences on the victim, and the need to protect the community. The court also examined the principles of sentencing for family violence, which emphasise the need for a tailored approach that takes into account the unique dynamics of domestic relationships. The court concluded that the cumulative effect of the offences, coupled with the appellant's history of similar behaviour, warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also highlighted the importance of addressing the underlying issues that contribute to family violence through appropriate rehabilitation programs.

The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence of five years was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. This sentence was designed to provide adequate punishment, deterrence, and protection for the victim while also offering the appellant an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the seriousness of family violence and the need for the community to be protected from offenders who engage in such behaviour. The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraph [39] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [39]

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.