Aldridge v The Queen - [2014] ACTCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Aldridge v The Queen
Citation:	[2014] ACTCA 34
Hearing Date(s):	4 August 2014
DecisionDate:	4 August 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ, Ross J and Walmsley AJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Criminal law – appeal against sentence – whether manifestly excessive – burglary
Cases Cited:	Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49
Parties:	Edward Graham Aldridge ( Appellant) The Queen ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( Appellant) Mr J White ( Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 70 of 2013
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Nield AJ Date of Decision: 15 October 2013 Case Title: Aldridge v The Queen Court File Number(s): SCC194 of 2012

MURRELL CJ:

I agree with the decision and reasons of Ross J.

ROSS J:

On 15 October 2013, Nield AJ sentenced Edward Graham Aldridge to two years and eight months' imprisonment for one count of burglary and two counts of theft. At the time of committing the offences, the offender was serving a suspended sentence for other theft and burglary offences and was on bail for a theft offence.

His Honour imposed the suspended sentence and, after orders for partial concurrency, the total head sentence imposed was three years and three months, with a nonparole period of two years and three months. Reparation was also ordered to be paid in the sum of $2265. This is an appeal by Mr Aldridge against the sentence imposed by his Honour. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Briefly stated, the facts are that on 18 May 2012 the appellant burgled a home in the late afternoon while the occupants were out. Entry was gained by opening a flyscreen that covered an open bedroom window. The appellant stole cigarettes valued at $40 and electrical items valued at $2225. The appellant left before the occupants returned home and was identified by fingerprints left at the point of entry.

I will deal first with his Honour's decision before turning to the appellant's submissions. The appellant appeared before his Honour for sentence on 15 October 2013. The Crown tendered a pre‑sentence report and a Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service report. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the appellant. His Honour referred to the procedural history before turning to the circumstances of the offending, observing that such offences caused the homeowner to experience a sense of violation and must be treated seriously.

At the time of the sentence, the appellant was subject to a suspended sentence order and a good behaviour order. The appellant was also subject to bail in relation to a theft committed on 9 November 2011. His Honour found that the commission of these offences in breach of bail and a good behaviour order was a seriously aggravating factor. His Honour referred to the appellant's criminal record, particularly for offences of theft, and went…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aldridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Aldridge v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 34
Case: [2014] ACTCA 34
Decision Date: 4 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aldridge appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales against the sentence imposed upon him following his conviction for burglary.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the offence.

The Court considered the nature of the burglary, the appellant's prior criminal record, and the sentencing principles applicable to such offences. Murrell CJ, Ross J and Walmsley AJ found that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant factors and that the sentence imposed was not outside the range of a reasonable sentence for the offence committed by the appellant. The Court therefore concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.