BG v Young - [2019] ACTSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	BG v Young
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 230
Hearing Date:	21 August 2019
DecisionDate:	21 August 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Where the appellant was a young person at the time of the offending – Where the Magistrates Court imposed a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment for common assault – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.
Legislation Cited:	Crime (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 133C, 133D, 133G Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) Pt 3.10
Cases Cited:	Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48
Parties:	BG (Appellant) Robert Campbell Young (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel R Davies (Appellant) C Wanigaratne (Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 31 of 2019

Murrell CJ

The appeal

The appellant appealed against a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment imposed by Chief Magistrate Walker on 13 May 2019, on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

On 13 May 2019, the Chief Magistrate imposed the following sentences:

Common assault six weeks’ imprisonment from 13 May 2019

Minor theft             six months’ supervised good behaviour order
Fail to appear          two weeks’ imprisonment fully suspended on a 12-month supervised good behaviour order
Fail to appear          four weeks’ imprisonment fully suspended on a 12-month supervised good behaviour order

As a result of the convictions, the appellant was placed in breach of five good behaviour orders that had been imposed by the Chief Magistrate on 13 November 2017. Her Honour decided to take no further action in relation to those breaches.

The appeal is brought under Pt 3.10 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), which is by way of rehearing. It is also necessary to identify an error of law or fact or an unreasonable exercise of discretion for the appellant to succeed.

Where it is claimed that a sentence is manifestly excessive, the question is whether the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust: Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 at [18]. It is well-established that an appeal court will not interfere with the exercise of the sentencing discretion simply because it would have imposed a different sentence.

Facts

At 11:30 AM on 30 August 2018, the appellant (who was then 17 years old) attempted to exit the David Jones Canberra store carrying stolen items in his bag. The alarm was activated. A security officer approached the appellant and called for him to stop. The appellant continued to walk away. The security officer grabbed the shoulder strap of the bag containing the stolen items. The appellant turned and threw a punch, striking the security officer on the side of his face. The appellant continued to strike the security officer repeatedly to his face. The security officer sustained swelling and bruising to the left side of his face. The appellant also kicked the lower part of the security officer’s body. The appellant was restrained by other security officers.

Chief Magistrate’s decision

In the course…

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 BG v Young

Details

AGLC: BG v Young [2019] ACTSC 230
Case: [2019] ACTSC 230
Decision Date: 21 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal is brought by the appellant, a young person, against a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court for an offence of common assault. The appellant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the appeal was heard in the higher court, which had to consider whether the Magistrates Court's decision was appropriate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's young age and the nature of the offence. The court had to balance the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence with the principles of sentencing for young offenders, which emphasise rehabilitation and reintegration.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the appellant's background, and the principles of sentencing for young offenders. It found that the Magistrates Court had adequately considered the relevant factors and had exercised its discretion reasonably. The court held that the sentence of six weeks' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the assault and the appellant's age. The appeal was therefore 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.