Bates v Marinov - [2007] NTSC 3

Bates v Marinov [2007] NTSC 3
PARTIES:BATES, Jamie

v
MARINOV, Ivan

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 55 of 2006 (20616776)
DELIVERED:  17 January 2007
HEARING DATE:  17 January 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Cox QC
Respondent:  A Nobbs
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  ril0704
Number of pages:  8

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Bates v Marinov [2007] NTSC 3
No JA 55 of 2006 (20616776)

IN THE MATTER OF the Juvenile Justice Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Youth Justice Court at Darwin

BETWEEN:
BATES, Jamie

Appellant
AND:
MARINOV, Ivan

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 January 2007)

On 21 November 2006 the appellant pleaded guilty to four offences committed on the night of 17/18 January 2006. Those offences arose out of an unlawful entry of the Saigon Supermarket at Palmerston and were one count of unlawful damage upon entry, one of unlawful entry, one of stealing goods to the value of $410 and one of unlawful damage within the premises. The appellant was convicted on each count and sentenced to detention for a period of five months. The sentence of detention was suspended forthwith and the appellant was placed under supervision.

The appellant appeals against that sentence on the following grounds:
(1)That the learned sentencing magistrate erred in that he failed to adequately take into account the defendant’s youth and lack of antecedents.
(2)That the overall sentence imposed by the learned sentencing magistrate was manifestly excessive.
The offending occurred when the appellant, who was then aged 16 years, and a co-offender went to the Saigon Supermarket on the night in question. The appellant picked up a plank of wood and handed it to his co-offender who used it to smash a window next to the door of the supermarket. They entered the supermarket and removed drinks which they consumed on the premises. They then went to the freezers and opened the doors, leaving them open. At the time the freezers contained meat, prawns and fish which all defrosted and became unusable. They then picked up several bottles of sauce and emptied them over the floor. They also tipped the sauce over bags of rice and mung beans, destroying those items. They later located a fire extinguisher and used that to spray the shelves and plants on the shelves. As they left the store they removed a DVD player. The total cost of goods stolen and damage done was $1350.
Police were called to the scene and the appellant was identified through his DNA profile. When asked his reason for entering the supermarket and stealing from it he said he had no money. When asked why he had caused the damage within the store…

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 Bates v Marinov

Details

AGLC: Bates v Marinov [2007] NTSC 3
Case: [2007] NTSC 3
Decision Date: 17 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard an appeal from Jamie Bates, who appealed the sentence imposed upon him by the Youth Justice Court at Darwin. Bates was convicted of four counts of unlawful entry, theft, and damage to property, and was sentenced to five months of detention, which was suspended and replaced with supervision. The central issues in the appeal were whether the sentencing magistrate erred in failing to adequately consider Bates' youth and lack of antecedents, and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. Bates argued that the sentence was unreasonable and plainly unjust, given his circumstances and that he had not reoffended since the initial offenses.

Riley J examined the evidence and arguments presented and concluded that while the sentencing magistrate did take into account Bates' youth and antecedents, the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The learned sentencing magistrate had failed to consider that this was Bates' first offence before the courts and that the subsequent offenses could not require a period of detention. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. The court then proceeded to re-sentence Bates, taking into account his prospects for rehabilitation and his enrolment in an 8-week course as a deckhand. Bates was convicted, released on a bond of $1,000, and required to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. He was also required to be supervised by officers of Correctional Services and to obey all reasonable directions as to residence, reporting, associates, curfew, education, employment, training, and substance counselling. The order for restitution was to remain in place.

This case demonstrates the importance of considering a defendant's youth and lack of antecedents in sentencing decisions, as well as the need for courts to exercise restraint and patience when dealing with juvenile offenders. The court also highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for positive change in a defendant's life.

Orders