SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Barnes v Barratt |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 295 |
Hearing Date(s): | 28 May, 30 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 31 October 2018 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | 1. The appeal will be dismissed. 2. The parties will be heard about any necessary consequential orders. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Criminal law – Appeal against sentence imposed in Magistrates Court – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5052 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 19 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32 |
Cases Cited: | Application by the Attorney General under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act for a Guideline Judgment Concerning the Offence of High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Under Section 9(4) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (No 3 of 2002) [2004] NSWCCA 303; 61 NSWLR 305 Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 |
Parties: | Peter Luke Barnes (Appellant) Stephen Robert Barratt (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr H Jorgensen(Appellant) Mr M Reardon (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SCA 78 of 2014 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 27 August 2014 Case Title: R v Barnes Court File Number(s): CC 1083/2013 |
Background
Peter Barnes has appealed against part of the sentence imposed on him in the Magistrates Court in August 2014 for a high range drink-driving offence committed as a repeat offender. At the same time, Mr Barnes was dealt with for two other relatively minor offences committed in the course of the drink-driving incident, being offences of trespass and doing a burnout in a motor vehicle, and for three other offences committed on other occasions after the drink-driving incident Those offences (two offences of driving while suspended and one of failing to appear on a bail undertaking) were also relatively minor, but all indicated a continuing disdain for the law.
As well as recording a conviction on the drink-driving offence, the Chief Magistrate sentenced Mr Barnes to four months’ imprisonment, fully suspended, and he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for five years. He has appealed only from the licence disqualification, his sole appeal ground being that the disqualification was manifestly excessive.
I note in passing that I am not sure that it is appropriate, or indeed available, to appeal against only part of a particular sentence, as distinct from appealing against the whole sentence and complaining about a part…
Continue reading Barnes v Barratt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barnes v Barratt [2018] ACTSC 295
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 295
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue for the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed. The respondent contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the nature of the offence.
The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence and did not amount to a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court noted that the parties would be heard about any necessary consequential orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal will be dismissed.
2. The parties will be heard about any necessary consequential orders.
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.