SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Barnes v Lodding |
Citation: | [2020] ACTCA 23 |
Hearing Date: | 5 May 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 5 May 2020 |
ReasonsDate: | 11 May 2020 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop J and Crowe AJ |
Decision: | Appeal dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court appeal – Resentence – Whether primary judge erred in finding specific error by Magistrate – Residual discretion |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 33 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5D |
Cases Cited: | Barnes v Lodding [2019] ACTMC 24 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 |
Parties: | Wayde Barnes (Appellant) Robert John Lodding (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel K Lee (Appellant) R Thomas (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Fitzgerald Naylor (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 54 of 2019 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Ashford AJ Date of Decision: 26 November 2019 Case Title: Lodding v Barnes Citation: [2019] ACTSC 335 |
THE COURT
Introduction
On 5 May 2020, we dismissed the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal and stated that reasons would be delivered later. These are our reasons.
On 11 December 2018, police executed search warrants at the respondent’s premises. During the search, the respondent admitted to police that there were amphetamines inside the premises. He said that all the drugs on the premises belonged to him, referred to his worsening drug addiction, and said that he sold drugs to support his drug habit. Police located 114.169 grams of 76.5 per cent pure methylamphetamine (worth about $10,000), a set of digital scales, cutting agents, and small clipseal bags.
On the fifth mention in the Magistrates Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 11 December 2018, he trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis (methylamphetamine), contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine is 6 grams. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.
On 23 July 2019, Magistrate Stewart (the Magistrate) sentenced the respondent to 15 months’ imprisonment from 23 July 2019 to 21 October 2020, with a nonparole period of 10 months’ imprisonment, expiring on 21 May 2020.
The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Magistrate had…
Continue reading Barnes v Lodding
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barnes v Lodding [2020] ACTCA 23
- Case
- [2020] ACTCA 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the primary judge had correctly exercised their residual discretion in resentencing the appellant. This required the Court to determine if the primary judge's finding of a specific error by the Magistrate was sound, and consequently, whether the subsequent resentence was justified.
The Court considered the principles governing appeals from sentencing decisions and the scope of a judge's residual discretion in such matters. It was held that the primary judge had not erred in their assessment of the Magistrate's sentencing error. The Court found that the Magistrate's original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending conduct, and therefore, the primary judge was entitled to intervene and impose a more appropriate sentence.
The appeal was accordingly 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.