Criminal Law Prosecution on sentencing and Reflective Report

Question: Discuss about the Prosecution on Sentencing. Answer: Prosecution on sentencing In this case, Leo, being a Protective Service Officer (PSO) has caused reckless injury to Sam and his friends at 1 am in the morning on July 20, 2016 while he was patrolling at Flinders Street station. Section 17 of the Crimes Act 1958 lays down that any person who causes seriously injuries to another person recklessly without having lawful justification or excuse for such act, the person is said to have committed an indictable offense[1]. Any person guilty of committing an indictable offense shall be punished with an imprisonment for a period of 15 years. According to section 18 of the Crime Acts 1958, any person who deliberately or recklessly causes injury to another person without any lawful excuse is said to be guilty of an indictable offense[2]. Any person who causes reckless injury to another person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of 5 years and if such person has caused the injury to any person intentionally, such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of 10 years. An act of recklessness requires the accused person to foresee the likeliness of the injury that may occur to the victim as a consequence of his or her actions or conduct. In this context, the term injury shall include that hysteria, unconsciousness, pain, any substantial impairment of bodily function[3]. An indictable offense such as causing reckless injury to any person shall carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a period of 5 years and /or a fine amounting to 1200 penalty units. Indictable offences are serious offences by nature and persons accused of committing indictable offenses are tried before a judge and a jury in the County or the Supreme Court[4]. However, such offense may be heard summarily before the Magistrates Court provided the court deems fit and the defendant assents to the same. In this matter, the Leo, a newly recruited police service officer, caused reckless injury to Sam and his friends, as he was highly irritated from the comments passed by Sam and his friends on July 20, 2016. Sam and his friends were only yelling under the influence of alcohol. Leo being a police officer could have warned them for behaving in that manner; instead, he himself got engaged in a brawl with Sam and his friends. It is expected from a protection police officer that they would safeguard the country and ensure safety of its citizens. In this matter, the Protection Police Officer himself got involved in causing Sam and his friends injuries without having any lawful excuse for the same. Sam and his friends were yelling at the police officers including Leo as they were not in their senses and was under the influence of alcohol. As per the statutory definition of reckless injury laid down under, section 18 of the Crimes Act, 1958, any person who without any legal justification, causes injures to other knowing that his conduct shall cause injuries to such person, is said to have committed reckless injury. Such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a maximum period of 5 years[5]. Further, the court must consider the following sentencing factors that have been laid down under section 5 (2) of the Sentencing Act 1991: Present sentencing practices Nature and gravity of the offense Statutory maximum penalty Whether the offense is a hate crime Injury, damage or loss from the offence Impact of the offense on the personal circumstances of the victim (VISs) Aggravating or mitigating factors Early entry of a guilty plea As per section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act (Vic) 1991 sentences are purported to be imposed for the following reasons: Deterrence Rehabilitation Protection of the community Denunciation just punishment All of the above According to section 109 of the Sentencing Act 1991, in case a person has committed indictable offence and such offense has been tried summarily, the matter shall be heard before the Magistrate. The person committing such offense shall be punished with imprisonment for 5 years and shall be liable to pay maximum fine of 600 penalty units. Reports reveal that the people aging from 17 years to 81 years are usually sentenced for causing injury recklessly[6]. As per statistics, men that are sentenced for causing reckless injury are slightly more aged than women are that is, a median age of 30 years compared to 29 years. In this matter, Leo contended that he is proud of his new qualifications and the new ways to serve the community. Therefore, when Sam and his friends were insulting him and his position he pushed Sam forcefully, and even attacked vividly. Sam mentioned in his Victim Impact Statement that Leo was so aggressive that he is fearful of Protective Service Officer (PSO) and the police generally. He also mentioned that he suffered minor scratch towards his head when he was forcefully pushed to the ground. The general police officers including the Protective Police Officer are under statutory obligation to protect the country and its citizens. If the citizens are scared of the police officers or the Protective service Officers, then the citizens shall feel reluctant to complain about any wrongs or crimes, which would enable the criminals to commit more crimes in the country[7]. The police officers are recruited to safeguard the citizens and they are under statutory obligation to act in the best interest of the country and its citizens. If they exhibit aggressive conduct, it would have an adverse impact on the society and the country as a whole. According to the statutory provisions, it is apparent that Leo has committed reckless injury towards Sam and his friends and is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a maximum period of 5 years with a fine of 600 penal units[8]. Reflective Report As per the case study, I observed that Leo is the PSO for Victoria Police and new recruiter in the department. At time of his duty, Sam who was a hooligan tried to abuse him and his colleges tried to saying some misleading objects. When he became irritated, he could not able to control his anger, pushed Sam to the ground forcefully, and sprays capsicum spray to him. His collogues noticed that he forcefully hit him. The victim was not seriously injured, he have suffered minimum head injury. Now, Victoria Police suspended him for a month without pay, charged with sec-18 of the Crimes Act 1958[9], and sent him to the Magistrate for the plea. Now, as per my investigation when he commences the offence he was in duty. When Sam was abusing him, he could have arrested him and handed him over to the Victoria Police. However, in anger he beats him. As per his record, he has good reputation and his family was well known to their community. From the observation of a defendant, sec- 16 defines in the Crimes Act that a person can be define as an accused if he cause injured to another person intentionally and sec 17 defines, a person can be treated as an accused if he recklessly cause any injury to the victim. While sec 18 of Crimes act defines the causing injury without lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly, I believe in this matter, Leo had no intention to harm Sam intentionally. There is also no lawful excuse that could be established because if Sam did not abuse him in front of his friends, then he would not have hit him. When Sam abused him, he out of anger beats him. His past record showed how responsible he is towards his job. Here, Sam was also commenced offence against a PSO who is in duty[10]. As per the view of the prosecution, when Sam tried to abuse Leo, the PSO can complain against the victim but he does not need to beat him that much when the PSO is not the actual cop. However, there is no lawful excuse established in this case and he did not intentionally harm Sam so, as per my belief, he is innocent and did not cause serious injury to Sam. Sam was slightly injured. Therefore, the Magistrate court must not imprison Leo according to sec- 109, Sentencing Act, 1991[11]. As per this section, for this offence a person can be imprisoned for at least 5 years or fine $600 penal units. However, as per my opinion, the court may again investigate the whole issue. Leo was not intending to cause any injury to Sam[12]. He is already guilty for beating Sam and the Victoria Police suspended him for 1 month without pay. The court can again review the whole case, punish him with the penalty of minimum fine, and acquit him. Sam must be punished as because he abused Leo when he is on duty of patrolling. References Allen, Michael.Textbook on criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013. Bagaric, Mirko. "The Punishment Should Fit the Crime-Not the Prior Convictions of the Person That Committed the Crime: An Argument for Less Impact Being Accorded to Previous Convictions in Sentencing."San Diego L. Rev.51 (2014): 343. Daly, Kathleen, and Rick Sarre. ". Criminal justice system: Aims and processes." (2016). Freiberg, Arie, and Karen Gelb.Penal populism, sentencing councils and sentencing policy. Routledge, 2014. Herring, Jonathan.Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Text, Cases and Materials, 2014. Ross, Stuart. "Victims in the Australian Criminal Justice System: Principles, Policy and (Distr) action."Crime, Victims and Policy: International Contexts, Local Experiences(2015): 214. Simester, Andrew P., et al.Simester and Sullivan's criminal law: theory and doctrine. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016. Taylor, Robert W., Eric J. Fritsch, and John Liederbach.Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press, 2014. The Crime Act 1958 The Sentencing Act 1991 Wales, New South. "the Australian Capital Territory."Australian Journal of Entomology36 (2015). Warner, Kate, et al. "Measuring jurors views on sentencing: Results from the second Australian jury sentencing study."Punishment Society19.2 (2017): 180-202. Herring, Jonathan.Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Text, Cases and Materials, 2014. Wales, New South. "the Australian Capital Territory."Australian Journal of Entomology36 (2015). Simester, Andrew P., et al.Simester and Sullivan's criminal law: theory and doctrine. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016. Freiberg, Arie, and Karen Gelb.Penal populism, sentencing councils and sentencing policy. Routledge, 2014. [5] Daly, Kathleen, and Rick Sarre. ". Criminal justice system: Aims and processes." (2016). Ross, Stuart. "Victims in the Australian Criminal Justice System: Principles, Policy and (Distr) action."Crime, Victims and Policy: International Contexts, Local Experiences(2015): 214. Allen, Michael.Textbook on criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2013. [8] Warner, Kate, et al. "Measuring jurors views on sentencing: Results from the second Australian jury sentencing study."Punishment Society19.2 (2017): 180-202. The Crime Act 1958 Taylor, Robert W., Eric J. Fritsch, and John Liederbach.Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press, 2014. The Sentencing Act 1991 Bagaric, Mirko. "The Punishment Should Fit the Crime-Not the Prior Convictions of the Person That Committed the Crime: An Argument for Less Impact Being Accorded to Previous Convictions in Sentencing."San Diego L. Rev.51 (2014): 343.