Abbott v Wilson

Case [2017] NTSC 50

CITATION:Abbott v Wilson [2017] NTSC 50

PARTIES:ABBOTT, James

v

WILSON, Taryn

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:LCA 8 of 2017 (21709910)

DELIVERED ON:  6 July 2017

DELIVERED AT:  Alice Springs

HEARING DATE:  24 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF:  HILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – sentencing – appeal against imposition of mandatory minimum fine on youth for traffic offences – interaction between Youth Justice Act and Traffic Act - the Court may apply the kind of penalties applicable to an adult for such offending but it is not required to impose the minimum penalties mandated for adults in so far as fines are concerned – appeal dismissed

APPEAL – sentencing – Youth Justice Act – recording a conviction against youth – counsel made detailed submissions but did not request for no conviction to be entered until after Judge had proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant - whether Judge erred in failing to allow counsel to be heard then on that issue – held that offending was serious and counsel should not have assumed that a conviction would not be recorded - no error - appeal dismissed

APPEAL – sentencing – imposition of fine upon youth – s 71(2) Youth Justice Act requires Court to be satisfied that the fine is appropriate having regard to the financial circumstances of the youth - held that the Judge did have due regard to the financial circumstances of the appellant and was so satisfied – appeal dismissed

Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act 2001 (NT) 123
Traffic Act 1987 (NT) s 22, s 31, s 32, s 33, s 34
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2006 (NT) s 61
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT) s 3, s 4, s 6, s 18, s 71, s 72, s 81, s 83, s 88, s 92, s 107

Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1; Police v MK [20017] NTMC 047; Westphal v O’Connor [2011] NTSC 33; R v DV [2015] NTSC 21406182, 21414403 and 21406171 (31 August 2015) Sentencing remarks; Qadir v Rigby [2012] NTSC 90; DD v Cahill [2009] NTSC 62, referred to

Hales v Adams [2005] NTSC 86; Verity v SB [2011] NTSC 26, followed

Whitehurst v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 11, distinguished

D Pearce and R Geddes Statutory Interpretation in Australia (Lexis Nexis, 8th ed, 2014).

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:T Collins

Respondent:  C Ingles

Solicitors:

Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  Hil1709

Number of pages:  25

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Abbott v Wilson [2017] NTSC 50

No. LCA 8 of 2017 (21709910)

BETWEEN:

JAMES ABBOTT

Appellant

AND:

TARYN WILSON

Respondent

CORAM:     HILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 6 July 2017)

Introduction

  1. On 24 February 2017 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Alice Springs Youth Justice Court to the following offences, all…

Continue reading Abbott v Wilson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Abbott v Wilson [2017] NTSC 50
Case
[2017] NTSC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Abbott v Wilson involved the appellant, a youth, challenging the sentencing decisions made by the trial court. The appellant argued against the imposition of a mandatory minimum fine for traffic offences, as well as the recording of a conviction and the appropriateness of the fine considering his financial circumstances. Additionally, the appellant contended that the victims levy imposed was incorrect. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal.

The court had to address several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to determine whether the trial court was correct in imposing a mandatory minimum fine on the youth for traffic offences, considering the interaction between the Youth Justice Act and the Traffic Act. Secondly, the court had to examine whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the appellant's counsel to be heard on the issue of recording a conviction before convicting and sentencing the appellant. Thirdly, the court had to assess whether the trial judge had properly considered the appellant's financial circumstances when imposing the fine. Finally, the court needed to verify the accuracy of the victims levy imposed.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in imposing a mandatory minimum fine, as the court is not required to impose the minimum penalties mandated for adults in so far as fines are concerned. The court held that while the Youth Justice Act allows for penalties applicable to an adult, it does not mandate the imposition of the minimum penalties for adults. Regarding the recording of a conviction, the court held that the appellant's counsel should not have assumed that a conviction would not be recorded and that there was no error in the trial judge's decision. The court also determined that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's financial circumstances when imposing the fine. However, the court found an error in the imposition of the victims levy and agreed with the respondent's submission that the order to pay $450 in victims levies should be quashed and replaced with an order for payment of $200 in victims levies.

The appeal was dismissed, except for the error in the imposition of the victims levy. The order to pay $450 in victims levies was quashed and replaced with an order that the appellant pay $200 in victims levies. The court concluded that the victims levy should have been $200, given that the appellant pleaded guilty to four separate counts and is a child under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2006 (NT).

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

It appears that there was an error in the imposition of a victims levy of $450. The victims levy is imposed pursuant to s 61 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2006 (NT). A victims levy is imposed once a person is found guilty, but not sentenced to imprisonment. Section 61(3)(b) states that the victims levy for a child who commits an offence is $50. Given the appellant pleaded guilty to four separate counts, the victims levy in this case should have been a total of $200, rather than $450. The respondent submitted that the order to pay $450 in victims levies, should be quashed and an order made for payment of $200 in victims levies. I agree.Conclusions and orders The order to pay $450 in victims levies is quashed and replaced with an order that the appellant pay $200 in victims levies. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.