Sentencing Remarks Case Study

Sentencing Remarks

Case Study 1: CHRISTALL, Daniel Ian

1. On the charges of theft and assault Mr Christall was sentenced to twenty one months imprisonment with a non-parole period of thirteen months despite the appropriate single sentence being described as one year and four months. The sentence was reduced from one year and four months on account of the guilty plea entered by Mr Christall. This sentence was later suspended on account of the accused’s apparent determination to beat his drug problem, evidenced by the fact that he had voluntarily sought treatment. The stable environment he has around him, his mental health issues, supported by a professional psychiatrist and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. This suspension

Mr Austin was given a sentence of one year and four months for the charge of aggravated assault causing harm, this was reduced from one year and nine months because of the guilty plea entered by the accused. An additional three months was added as a previous suspended sentence was revoked as the crime was a breach of the bond set. Therefore Mr Austin was sentenced to a head sentence of one year and seven months, the duration of which he had already served while in custody awaiting trial.

2. In this case Mr Austin did indeed plead guilty to aggravated assault causing harm. The result of this plea was a slightly reduced sentence.

3. The judge cites his reason for sentencing as a deterrent to both the accused and the rest of society. That is to say that the judge hopes the severity of the sentence will deter Mr Austin from offending again and serve as an example of the possible punishments for a crime of this severity to the rest of the public. When deciding the sentence the judge took into account the guilty plea entered by the accused, the impact of the crime on the victim and his family, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the criminal history of the