SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Rheinberger (No 2) |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 307 |
Hearing Dates: | 2, 21 and 24 June 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 5 October 2016 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [4] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – particular offences – offences against the person – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – offender intoxicated – offender found guilty of the charge – term of imprisonment imposed – suspended sentence – Good Behaviour Order. |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Kane Rheinberger (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Ms S Boxall (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 3 of 2015 |
BURNS J:
Mr Rheinberger, the offence of which I convicted you is a very serious offence, and in many ways it was a particularly cowardly offence because you are a much younger and stronger man than the person that you assaulted.
I had initially intended to sentence you to imprisonment for approximately 18 months, with a non-parole period of around about 12 months. With some misgivings I decided to give you an opportunity to attend residential rehabilitation.
I am satisfied that you took the opportunity to the best of your ability at the time. I accept that the reasons why you left the program at the time you did was not in order to return to the use of substances and the way in which you were living previously. I accept that having left the residential rehabilitation program you have now returned to live with your family and that you have undertaken a much more stable and pro-social lifestyle. I am therefore minded to give you a further opportunity to demonstrate that you are progressing on a road towards rehabilitation.
Sentence
I will record a conviction with respect to the charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm (CC14/7222), and you will be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, which will be wholly suspended. There will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months from today, 5 October 2016 with the following conditions:
(a)you are to report forthwith to ACT Corrective Services;
(b)you are to accept the supervision of the Director-General of ACT Corrective Services, or his or her delegate, for that period of 18 months, or such lesser period as may be deemed appropriate by your supervising officer; and
(c)you are to obey all reasonable directions of each such person and, in particular directions to:
(i)attend counselling or treatment for substance abuse or anger management; and
(ii)provide urine samples for analysis.
[Speaks directly to the offender]
Now, what that means is that I have recorded a conviction. I have sentenced you to 18 months imprisonment. You do not have to serve that period of 18 months imprisonment unless you do the wrong thing. If you do the right thing for the next 18 months, and that is you do not commit any further offences and you comply with the directions that are given to you by Corrective Services over that period of 18 months, then at the end of the period of 18 months the matter will have been concluded and there will be no need for you to serve any term of full‑time imprisonment.
However, if you commit some further offence during that 18 month period, or you fail to comply with the directions that are given to you by Corrective Services, then you may be brought back before this Court to be dealt with on a breach of these orders, at which time you should expect to serve at least some of that period by way of full‑time imprisonment.
| I certify that the preceding six [6] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns. Associate: Date: 20 October 2016 |
- AGLC
- R v Rheinberger (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 307
- Case
- [2016] ACTSC 307
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment and whether any alternative sentencing options, such as a suspended sentence or a Good Behaviour Order, would be more suitable given the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the appellant's level of intoxication at the time of the incident, and the potential for rehabilitation.
The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in the context of the offence committed. It was noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had no prior criminal history. The court ultimately decided to impose a term of imprisonment, which was to be suspended, and also ordered a Good Behaviour Order to be in place for a specified period. This decision reflected a balanced approach that accounted for the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's level of intoxication, and their potential for rehabilitation.
The court's orders included the imposition of a suspended sentence and a Good Behaviour Order for the appellant. The specific details of the sentence and the duration of the Good Behaviour Order were outlined in the final judgment, ensuring that the appellant understood the requirements and consequences of their conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [4]
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.