Barrett v The Queen

Case [2016] ACTCA 38

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Barrett v The Queen

Citation:

[2016] ACTCA 38

Hearing Date:

10 August 2016

DecisionDate:

10 August 2016

ReasonsDate:

11 August 2016

Before:

Murrell CJ, Elkaim and Ross JJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – whether sentences manifestly excessive – individual sentences – accumulation – nonparole period – no specific error identified

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33

Cases Cited:

Balthazaarv The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48
Dinsdalev The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Markarianv The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Dugdale (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Penfold J, 15 August 2012)
R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
R v TW (2011) 6 ACTLR 18

Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22

Parties:

Rodney Barrett (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)

Mr J White SC (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 40 of 2015

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Burns J

Date of Decision:         3 September 2015

Case Title:  R v Barrett

Citation: [2015] ACTSC 280

THE COURT:

The sentences

  1. The appellant appealed against sentences imposed on 3 September 2015 for offences committed on 3 December 2014 and 29 January 2015.

  1. After allowing a 25% discount for the pleas of guilty, the sentencing judge imposed the following sentences:

Charge Maximum Penalty Sentence

Drive motor vehicle without consent (CC14/11797)

s 318(2) Criminal Code 2002

 5 years’ imprisonment 4 months’ imprisonment from 19 January 2015 - 8 May 2015

Drive while disqualified (CC14/11798)

s 32(1) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999

 6 months’ imprisonment 3 months’ imprisonment from 19 March 2015 - 18 June 2015

Attempt burglary (CC15/1360)

s 311 Criminal Code 2002

 14 years’ imprisonment 15 months’ imprisonment from 19 June 2015 - 18 September 2016

Attempt aggravated robbery (CC15/1361) 

s 31O Criminal Code 2002

 25 years’ imprisonment 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment from 19 December 2015 - 18 March 2018
Obstruct territory public official (CC 15/1364) s 361(1) Criminal Code 2002 2 years’ imprisonment

2 months’ imprisonment from 19 December 2015 - 18 February

2016.

Possess offensive weapon with intent (CC15/1366)

s 381 Crimes Act 1900

 1 year imprisonment

2 months’ imprisonment from 19 December 2015 - 18 February

2016.

Theft (CC15/275)

s 308 Criminal Code 2002

 10 years’ imprisonment 3 months’ imprisonment from 19 December 2015 - 18 March 2016

Burglary - intent to commit theft (CC15/5642)

s 311 Criminal Code 2002

 14 years’ imprisonment

18 months’ imprisonment from 19 September 2017 - 18 March

2019

Possess article with intent to use in the course of a burglary (CC15/5643)

s 316(1) Criminal Code 2002

 5 years’ imprisonment 9 months’ imprisonment from 19…

Continue reading Barrett v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38
Case
[2016] ACTCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, Barrett, by the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant sought to challenge the sentences imposed upon him, arguing that they were manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentences, both individually and when accumulated, and the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge, were demonstrably excessive to the point of warranting appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal found no specific error in the sentencing judge's approach. It was held that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the nature of the offences, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing, such as deterrence and rehabilitation. The accumulation of sentences and the fixing of the non-parole period were found to be within the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion, and no manifest excess was identified.

Consequently, 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.