SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Calatzis v Jones |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 42 |
Hearing Date: | 13 February 2024 |
Decision Date: | 27 February 2024 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [110] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – PROSECUTION APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – act of indecency – where letter of apology disclosed respondent was not confused about whether victim consented – magistrate erred in finding reduction of moral culpability arising from the circumstances in which the offending occurred – error established – respondent resentenced CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Sentencing principles – reduction of sentence – scope of statutory discretion to award discount narrowed by ACT Court of Appeal decisions – emphasis on utilitarian value of plea STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Statutory construction of s 31(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – whether s 31(2) prevents the imposition of a good behaviour order that overlaps with any sentence – where s 31(2) introduced as legislative response to theoretical problem discussed in ACTSC cases – text, content and purpose indicate that s 31(2) applies only in relation to a combination sentence – provision did not apply to sentence imposed by magistrate |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 60 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 12(3), 13, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, Pt 3.6, Ch 6 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 108, 110, 149 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), ss 6(3), 126(1), 140, 145, Pt 14.2 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 219B(1)(f), 219D(e), 219F |
Cases Cited: | Atanackovic v R [2015] VSCA 136; 45 VR 179 Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Director of Public Prosecutions v Earle [2023] ACTSC 93 DPP v Jones (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 99 DPP v Robertson [2023] ACTSC 383 Harlovich v Sebbens [2023] ACTSCFC 3 Millard v Pomeroy [2022] ACTSC 319 Miller v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 21 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 Peter v Wade [2017] ACTSC 122; 80 MVR 268 R v Ali (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 350 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 The Queen v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25 Van Leeuween v Hawke [2012] ACTSC 8; 256 FLR 433 |
Texts Cited: | Australian Capital Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 30 November 2017 Explanatory Statement, Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 (No 2) (ACT) |
Parties: | Paul Calatzis ( Appellant) Liam Jones ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel T Hickey ( Appellant) K Lee ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions ( Appellant) Armstrong Legal ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 52 of 2023 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before:… |
Continue reading Calatzis v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the proper application of sentencing principles, particularly the reduction of sentence for reasons such as the early guilty plea. The court needed to determine whether the magistrate had correctly assessed the moral culpability of the offence and whether the statutory provisions concerning sentencing discounts were applied appropriately. Additionally, the court had to interpret the meaning of section 31(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), which pertains to the imposition of good behaviour orders.
The court found that the magistrate had erred in reducing the sentence by attributing a lesser degree of moral culpability to the respondent. The letter of apology submitted by the respondent indicated that he was aware of the victim's consent, contrary to the magistrate's findings. The court also clarified that section 31(2) of the Act does not preclude the imposition of a good behaviour order that overlaps with another sentence; it only applies to a combination sentence. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for resentencing. The respondent was to be resentenced to better reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as an effective deterrent.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [110]
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.