Charles v The Queen

[2021] ACTCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title: 

Charles v The Queen

Citation: 

[2021] ACTCA 23

Hearing Date: 

10 August 2021

Decision Date: 

10 August 2021

Reasons Date: 

13 September 2021

Before: 

Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson and Thawley JJ

Decision: 

The appeal is dismissed

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – criminal law – sentence appeal – whether sentence manifestly excessive – sentence of imprisonment imposed after cancellation of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order – aggravated burglary – common assault – obtain property by deception – ride/drive motor vehicle without consent – error not established

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 312, 318(2), 326
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) pt 5.4A.5, ss 12A(2), 80W,
80V, 80ZE

Cases Cited: 

Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420
Cramp v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 305
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hudson v The Queen [2010] VSCA 332; 30 VR 610
Kelly v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 15
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Charles [2020] ACTSC 39
R v Charles (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 366
R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362

Re Attorney-General’s Application [No 1] under s 26 of the

Criminal Procedure Act; R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48
NSWLR 327
Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9
Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51

Parties: 

Delphine Maree Charles (Appellant)
The Queen (Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)
K McCann (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number: 

ACTCA 3 of 2021

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:	ACT Supreme Court
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Date of Decision:	21 December 2020
Case Title:	R v Charles (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 366

THE COURT: 

Introduction 

1.       The appellant appeals against orders made by Refshauge AJ (the primary judge) on 21 December 2020 cancelling a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO) and imposing a sentence of full-time imprisonment; that sentence being of 1 year, 11 months and 4 days commencing on 11 September 2020 and expiring on 14 August 2022. A non-parole period of 13 months was imposed: R v Charles (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 366 (R v Charles (No 2)).

2.       On 10 August 2021 the Court made an order dismissing the appeal.

3.       The Court indicated at that time that reasons would be published at a later date. The reasons follow.

4.       The appellant appeals against the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The appellant is self-represented and has provided a letter to the court. The appellant does not challenge the cancellation of the DATO, but rather the term of imprisonment imposed.

5.       The appellant has attached various support letters and certificates of programs completed after her sentence was imposed including: certificates of attendance…