Legal Research
Cases
Chatfield v Badman

Chatfield v Badman

Case [2015] ACTSC 209 29 July 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Chatfield v Badman
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 209
Hearing Date:	29 July 2015
DecisionDate:	29 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal allowed. See [27].
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Criminal – whether sentence manifestly excessive – objective seriousness – possess prohibited weapon
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10(2), 12, 35, 35(2), 35(3), 37 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 208, 214 Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5, sch 1
Cases Cited:	Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64 Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 R v Ayoub (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 4 July 2012) R v Okwechime [2015] ACTSC 129
Parties:	Bertha Elizabeth Chatfield (Appellant) John Lindsay Badman (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr R Davies (Appellant) Ms M Lucero (Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 25 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Cook Date of Decision: 4 March 2015 Case Title: Badman v Chatfield Court File Number: CC 90 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

Background

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to the offence that she possessed a prohibited weapon (a hand-held electrical device) contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT). This offence carries a maximum available penalty of five years’ imprisonment, capped at two years where the sentence is imposed by the Magistrates Court.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), the sentence was wholly suspended upon the appellant undertaking to be of good behaviour for 12 months. The core conditions of the undertaking were not supplemented by additional conditions.

The appellant appealed against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. In submissions, the appellant relied on the combination of the following alleged errors:

(a)The Magistrate erred in characterising the offence as falling within the medium range of objective seriousness.
(b)The Magistrate failed to indicate the nature of any discount allowed for the plea of guilty made at the first available opportunity.
(c)The sentence does not take proper account of the appellant’s limited criminal history and other subjective circumstances.
(d)The Magistrate erred in concluding that the only available sentence was one of imprisonment.

Nature of the Appeal

The appeal is brought pursuant to s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Under s 214 of Magistrates Court Act, the Supreme Court must have regard to the evidence given in the proceedings before the Magistrates Court, and has the power to draw inferences of fact.

On many occasions, this Court has held that a sentence appeal under s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act is an appeal of a type discussed in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

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 Chatfield v Badman

Details

AGLC: Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209
Case: [2015] ACTSC 209
Decision Date: 29 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Chatfield v Badman involved the appellant, who was convicted of possessing a prohibited weapon. The conviction and sentence were the subject of an appeal to the court. The appellant contended that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and did not align with the objective seriousness of the offence. The appeal was heard and determined by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe compared to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The court was tasked with evaluating the sentence in light of the objective seriousness of possessing a prohibited weapon and determining if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court thoroughly examined the nature of the offence and the circumstances leading to the conviction. It considered the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the trial judge's assessment of the seriousness of the offence. The court also assessed whether the sentence was proportionate to the objective seriousness of the offence. After careful consideration, the court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was indeed manifestly excessive, given the objective seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was deemed to be manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was quashed. The matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the new sentence reflects the objective seriousness of the offence and is not manifestly excessive. The court's decision underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider the objective seriousness of an offence when imposing a sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. See [27].

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209

Most Recent Citation

Stafrace v Carter [2017] ACTSC 371

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Rose
[2025] ACTSC 469 Para 8

…With regard to the possession of a knife without reasonable excuse, following Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209 at [11], I have considered both the nature of the particular knife and the nature of the offender’s conduct vis-à-vis that item. Here, the knife was a machete, which was accepted to be a sizeable item c…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Chatfield
[2024] ACTSC 329

…Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209 DPP v Djerke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 341 DPP v Donohue (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 272 DPP v Joliffe-Cole [2024] ACTSC 256 Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5 Kelly v Ashby [2015] ACTSC 346; 73 MVR 360 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357…
R v Banks
[2022] ACTSC 202 Para 1

…In Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209, Murrell CJ observed that “ [w]hen considering the objective seriousness of an offence of this type, it is necessary to consider both the nature of the particular prohibited weapon and the nature of the offender’s conduct vis-à-vis that weapon. ”…
Urlich v The Queen
[2019] ACTCA 30

…Arman v Wall [2008] ACTSC 61 Butler v Vickers [2011] ACTSC 134 Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209 Cooper v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 57 Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Weidlich [2008] VSCA 203…
Rogers v Thackray
[2019] ACTSC 336 Para 1

…age discount. Such a failure does not invalidate a sentence but it does not assist in determining any weight given to the plea. In Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209, Murrell CJ discussed the importance of complying with s 37, saying that it is highly desirable that a sentencing court give some indication of the m…
Stafrace v Carter
[2017] ACTSC 371 Para 1

…So far as the prohibited weapon offence is concerned, the appellant placed significant reliance upon the decision of Murrell CJ in Chatfield v Badman [2015] ACTSC 209. In that case, her Honour found that there had been an error in the assessment of the objective seriousness of an offence in very similar circumstanc…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v Okwechime
[2015] ACTSC 129 Para 1

…The respondent referred to the cases of R v Ayoub (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Nield AJ, 4 July 2012) and R v Okwechime [2015] ACTSC 129, where the offenders received a sentence of imprisonment for the offence of possessing a prohibited weapon. However, those cases involved offences that were much more ob…
Monfries v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 46 Para 1

…While the manner in which s 35 of the Sentencing Act should be applied is not free from doubt (see Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46 at [30] – [45]), it is usual practice for a plea entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity to attract a discount of 25% on the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed…
Hawkins v Hawkins
[2009] ACTSC 148 Para 1

…s Court Act is an appeal of a type discussed in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: see, e.g., Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 and Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148. The Court will intervene only if there is an express error of law or fact, or where error can be implied because the sentence falls outside the avai…
Cotter v Corvisy
[2008] ACTSC 64 Para 1

…In Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64 at [57], Refshauge J discussed s 37 of the Sentencing Act . Without deciding whether noncompliance with s 37 invalidated a sentence, his Honour articulated the impression that failure to comply with s 37 did not invalidate a sentence. I am of the same impression.…
Kennewell v Rand
[2006] ACTCA 10 Para 1

…e appeal under s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act is an appeal of a type discussed in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: see, e.g., Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 and Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148. The Court will intervene only if there is an express error of law or fact, or where error can be implied beca…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…y occasions, this Court has held that a sentence appeal under s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act is an appeal of a type discussed in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: see, e.g., Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 and Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148. The Court will intervene only if there is an express error of la…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 1

…On many occasions, this Court has held that a sentence appeal under s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act is an appeal of a type discussed in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: see, e.g., Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 and Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148. The Court will intervene only if there is an express error of la…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10(2), 12, 35, 35(2), 35(3), 37 7 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
208, 214 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT)
5 2 mentions (from Para 1)