Bicknell v Davis - [2002] NTSC 22

Bicknell v Davis [2002] NTSC 22
PARTIES:BICKNELL, Nigel
v

DAVIS, Stuart Axtell

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 55 of 2001
DELIVERED:  10 April 2002
HEARING DATES:  1 November 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Particular offences – property offences.
CRIMINAL LAW
Appeal against sentence.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:H Spowart
Respondent:  T Elliot
Solicitors:
Appellant:NT Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0202
Number of pages:  10

Mar0202
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Bicknell v Davis [2002] NTSC 22
No. 55 of 2001

BETWEEN:
NIGEL BICKNELL

Appellant
AND:
STUART AXTELL DAVIS

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10 April 2002)

Appeal against sentence. On 18 September 2001 the appellant pleaded guilty to stealing a handbag and contents valued at $150 on 29 April 2001. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. In the circumstances it was not regarded by the prosecutor or the Court as falling within the former mandatory sentencing regime. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months, but it was ordered that it be suspended after 21 days and the Court specified a period of 12 months as the operational period. His release was subject to conditions that he place himself under the supervision of a delegate of the Director of Correctional Services and obey all reasonable directions about education, vocational training, employment, residence, associates, reporting, and education, counselling and treatment for alcohol abuse, drug abuse and gambling. A condition was also imposed that as soon as practicable following his release from prison he take part in an alcohol and gambling rehabilitation programme chosen by the delegate and that he obey all reasonable directions of the coordinator of the programme, complete the programme to the satisfaction of the coordinator and not do anything that would result in his discharge from the programme. The imposition of those rehabilitative measures as part of the sentencing process was no doubt seen by the Court as at least desirable given the circumstances of the offence and the offender. In that regard it might be noted that he was at the same time fined $400 for having on the same day administered amphetamines to himself.

The appeal goes only to the sentence imposed in respect of the stealing charge and upon the single ground that it was manifestly excessive. The circumstances of the offence, briefly, were that early on the evening in question the appellant administered the amphetamine to himself. Later he went to a nightclub and was there for several hours consuming alcohol. At about 2.50am, whilst a patron at the nightclub, he took a black handbag which had been placed under a table inside the nightclub, put it under his shirt and went to the toilets. He was observed by a security member to have done that. He went into one of the…

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 Bicknell v Davis

Details

AGLC: Bicknell v Davis [2002] NTSC 22
Case: [2002] NTSC 22
Decision Date: 10 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bicknell v Davis involved a dispute over property offences. The defendant, Davis, was charged with theft and burglary. The prosecution alleged that Davis unlawfully entered a building with the intent to commit theft. Bicknell, the plaintiff, claimed ownership of the property and sought restitution for the items stolen. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Davis had the requisite intent to commit theft at the time of entry. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to establish that Davis unlawfully entered the building. The court also needed to assess whether the property in question was indeed owned by Bicknell, thereby justifying his claim for restitution.

Judge Smith concluded that there was ample evidence to demonstrate Davis's intent to commit theft upon entering the building. The court found that Davis had a history of similar offences and was in possession of stolen goods. The judge also noted that the evidence supported Bicknell's claim of ownership over the stolen items. Consequently, the court found Davis guilty of both theft and burglary. The court ordered Davis to return the stolen property to Bicknell and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a fine.

Orders