SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Armstrong v Saddler |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 263 |
Hearing Date: | 31 July 2024 |
Decision Date: | 26 August 2024 |
Before: | Baker J |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – appeal against sentence imposed by Magistrates Court – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – family violence – ex tempore judgment – error in considering the availability of a good behaviour order – where appellant seeking non-conviction order – effect of conviction on appellant’s employment - no lesser sentence than imposed by Magistrate appropriate in all of the circumstances – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 17, 34B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 28(2)(a) Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), pt 3.10 |
Cases Cited: | Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472 Agarwal v Coutts (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 92 Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159; 291 A Crim R 495 Director of Public Prosecutions v Chen [2023] ACTSC 154 GW v R [2015] ACTCA 15; 306 FLR 104 Greenwood v Barlee [2018] ACTSC 46 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 KQE v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] ACTCA 7 R v Stephenson [2010] NSWSC 779 |
Parties: | Hayden Terrence Armstrong ( Appellant) |
| Beau Dylan Saddler ( Respondent) | |
Representation: | Counsel K Lee ( Appellant) E Knaggs ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Tim Sharman Solicitors ( Appellant) | |
| ACT Director of Public Prosecutions | |
File Number: | CA 70 of 2023 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Cook Date of Decision: 6 December 2023 Case Title: R v Armstrong Court File Number: CC2022/5190 |
BAKER J:
Overview
1․The appellant, Hayden Armstrong, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2022/5190), and not guilty to a further charge of intentionally and unlawfully choking, suffocating or strangling another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act (CC2022/5191). The Magistrate accepted the appellant’s plea of guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but dismissed the choking charge following a defended hearing.
2․On 6 December 2023, the Magistrate convicted the appellant and imposed a fine of $1,400.00.
3․By way of a Notice of Appeal filed 28 February 2024, the appellant appeals from this sentence. The specific grounds of the appeal are as follows:
(a)His Honour erred in his assessment of the objective seriousness of the matter.
(b)His Honour…
Continue reading Armstrong v Saddler
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Armstrong v Saddler [2024] ACTSC 263
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the effect of the conviction on his employment. The court also examined the error in considering the availability of a good behaviour order, and whether this error was significant enough to warrant a reduction in sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate in all of the circumstances, and that a non-conviction order was not warranted. The court noted that the appellant had a history of family violence, and that the offence was committed in the context of family violence. The court also found that the effect of the conviction on the appellant's employment was not significant enough to warrant a reduction in sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in all of the circumstances, and that a non-conviction order was not warranted. The court noted that the appellant had a history of family violence, and that the offence was committed in the context of family violence. The court also found that the effect of the conviction on the appellant's employment was not significant enough to warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that no lesser sentence than that imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate in all of the circumstances. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is 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.