Chapman v Cottle (No 2)

Case [2025] ACTSC 126

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Chapman v Cottle (No 2)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 126

Hearing Date: 

12 October 2022

Referral to Full Court

1 December 2022

No further submissions confirmed

29 January 2024

Decision Date: 

31 March 2025

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision: 

1)    Appeal dismissed

2) Pursuant to s 219F(8) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the costs of and incidental to the appeal are payable by the appellant within 28 days.

3)    Leave is granted for the appellant to have the matter relisted in relation to the 28-day time limit should that prove necessary.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal from the Magistrates Court against sentence – residual discretion - matter decided subsequent to referral to full court – sentence not manifestly inadequate – lenient sentence – sentencing Rubicon of manifest inadequacy not crossed

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 116(3)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 17, 33(1) 34B

Drug of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 169

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) ss 43, 46

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) pt 3.10, ss 219B(1)(f), 219D(e), 219F

Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (ACT)

Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT) s 6

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 19

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 13(3)

Cases Cited: 

Amaca Pty Ltd v Werfel [2020] SASCFC 125; 138 SASR 295

AMZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 6

Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Chapman v Cottle [2022] ACTSC 330

CMB v Attorney-General(NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346

Croatto v Banks [2015] ACTSC 398

Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48; 19 ACTLR 264

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321

DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 26; 266 CLR 1

Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; 86 ALJR 1086

DPP v Ivanisevic (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 374

Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295

Fall v Vuolo [2022] ACTSC 249

Firth v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 144

Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31

Gordon v Reddin [2013] ACTSC 87

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293

Hall v CL [2015] ACTSC 286

Harlovich v Sebbens [2022] ACTSC 331

Harlovich v Sebbens [2023] ACTSCFC 3; 20 ACTLR 237

Harlovich v Sebbens [2024] ACTSC 153

Kaye v Siddiq [2013] ACTSC 62

Kirby v Ali [2021] ACTSC 95

Knight v Birch (1992) 106 ACTR 27; 106 FLR 109

LM v Childrens Court of the ACT [2014] ACTSC 26

Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; 185 CLR 259

Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 609

Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 228

NH v Dixon [2022]…

Continue reading Chapman v Cottle (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chapman v Cottle (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 126
Case
[2025] ACTSC 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman v Cottle (No 2) was an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Chapman, challenged the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate. The case was subsequently referred to a full court for decision. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly inadequate, and if not, whether there were any other grounds upon which the appeal could succeed.

The court began by noting the well-established principle that the appeal court should not interfere with the primary judge's sentencing discretion unless the sentence is manifestly inadequate. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was within the range of reasonable outcomes, and that there were no other grounds upon which the appeal could succeed.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and that the costs of and incidental to the appeal be paid by the appellant within 28 days. The court also granted leave for the appellant to have the matter relisted in relation to the 28-day time limit should that prove necessary. This order was made to ensure that the appellant had an opportunity to comply with the costs order, should they be unable to do so within the specified time frame.

In summary, the court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was not manifestly inadequate, and dismissed the appeal. The court also ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid by the appellant, and granted leave for the appellant to have the matter relisted in relation to the 28-day time limit should that prove necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) Appeal dismissed

2) Pursuant to s 219F(8) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the costs of and incidental to the appeal are payable by the appellant within 28 days.

3) Leave is granted for the appellant to have the matter relisted in relation to the 28-day time limit should that prove necessary.

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.