R v Aikman & Bicanic [2007] NSWDC 206

R v Aikman & Bicanic [2007] NSWDC 206

Both offenders were convicted of assaulting police officers in execution of duty causing actual bodily harm, contrary to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence was serious, but mitigating circumstances, including early guilty pleas, lack of substantial injuries, lack of significant violent criminal records, and demonstrated rehabilitation, justified suspension of the sentences under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Each was sentenced to two years imprisonment, execution suspended on condition they enter good behaviour bonds for two years with supervision and conditions.

Parties
Co Accused: Scott Aikman; Co Accused: Aaron Bicanic; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Convicted; sentenced to two years imprisonment each; sentence suspended under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act on the condition they enter a good behaviour bond for two years.
Legal Topics
Assault on Police Officer, Sentencing, Plea Mitigation
Criminal Law Assault on Police Officer Sentencing Plea Mitigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Aikman

Co Accused

Aaron Bicanic

Co Accused

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for assaulting police officer in execution of duty causing actual bodily harm
  2. 2 Consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors under s 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
  3. 3 Application and interpretation of standard non-parole period under s 60(2) Crimes Act 1900

Ratio Decidendi

Both offenders were convicted of assaulting police officers in execution of duty causing actual bodily harm, contrary to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence was serious, but mitigating circumstances, including early guilty pleas, lack of substantial injuries, lack of significant violent criminal records, and demonstrated rehabilitation, justified suspension of the sentences under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Each was sentenced to two years imprisonment, execution suspended on condition they enter good behaviour bonds for two years with supervision and conditions.

Court Disposition

Convicted; sentenced to two years imprisonment each; sentence suspended under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act on the condition they enter a good behaviour bond for two years.

Orders

  • Mr Bicanic convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment; execution suspended under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act; released on condition of good behaviour bond for two years with supervision, reporting requirements, and conditions commencing today.
  • Mr Aikman convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment; execution suspended under s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act; released on condition of good behaviour bond for two years with supervision, reporting requirements, and conditions commencing today.