KYLIE ANN CARPENTER v CARLY PURCELL [2008] ACTSC 34 (28 April 2008)
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from decision of Magistrates Court of the ACT – principles for determining appeals – severity of sentence – manifestly excessive sentence – error of law by Magistrate – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – terms of imprisonment – availability of alternative sentencing options – discount for plea of guilty – Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
CRIMINAL LAW – offences – unlawfully taking a child – unlawfully harbouring a child – assault – Crimes Act 1900 – Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT).
CRIMINAL LAW – variation of sentence – stay of sentence pending appeal – status of remand prisoners – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), par 40(a), s 22
Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT), s 390
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 214, 216, 218
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 35
WNB v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 269
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Baxter v R [2007] NSWCCA 237
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Markarian v The Queen (2006) 228 CLR 357
Hadba v The Queen [2004] ACTSC 62
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT
No. SCA 104 of 2007
Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 28 April 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 104 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT
BETWEEN:KYLIE ANN CARPENTER
Appellant
AND:CARLY PURCELL
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Penfold J
Date: 28 April 2008
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is dismissed, except to the extent necessary to vary the sentences appealed from as follows:
(a)For the earlier offence in respect of which the appellant had breached her good behaviour order—the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is backdated to 6 October 2007 to take account of time served.
(b)For the two offences of unlawfully taking a child—the sentences of 12 months imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently, but cumulative on the 3 months imprisonment in respect of the earlier offence, are backdated to 6 January 2008.
(c)The total period of imprisonment that is not suspended remains 15 months. The non-parole period of 8 months set in respect of the sentence is also backdated to 6 October 2007.
Introduction
This is an appeal from sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court in respect of four offences, as follows:
(a) two offences of unlawfully taking a child, under par 40(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (maximum penalty imprisonment for 10 years);
(b) one offence of assault with intent to commit an indictable offence, under s 22 of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty imprisonment for 5 years); and
(c) a prior offence of harbouring a child, under s 390 of the Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT) (maximum penalty 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or…
Continue reading Carpenter v Purcell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Carpenter v Purcell [2008] ACTSC 34
- Case
- [2008] ACTSC 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and if there had been an error of law by the Magistrate. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, including the discount for a plea of guilty, the availability of alternative sentencing options, and the appropriateness of custodial sentences. The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and the Magistrates Court Act 1930.
In its reasoning, the court noted that while the sentences were severe, they were not manifestly excessive. The court found no legal errors by the Magistrate that would warrant setting aside the sentences. However, the court did consider the appellant's good behaviour order breach and the need to backdate the sentences to account for the time served. The court concluded that the sentences were appropriate in the circumstances and did not constitute an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed except for the necessary variations to the sentences to ensure they were backdated correctly.
The final orders of the court varied the sentences to backdate them appropriately to account for time served and to ensure the non-parole period was correctly calculated. The total period of imprisonment that was not suspended remained at 15 months, with a non-parole period of 8 months also backdated.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed, except to the extent necessary to vary the sentences appealed from as follows:
(a) For the earlier offence in respect of which the appellant had breached her good behaviour order?the sentence of 3 months imprisonment is backdated to 6 October 2007 to take account of time served.
(b) For the two offences of unlawfully taking a child?the sentences of 12 months imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently, but cumulative on the 3 months imprisonment in respect of the earlier offence, are backdated to 6 January 2008.
(c) The total period of imprisonment that is not suspended remains 15 months. The non-parole period of 8 months set in respect of the sentence is also backdated to 6 October 2007.
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.