Chatfield v Rhynehart - [2008] ACTSC 47

NIKIA CHATFIELD v ADAM GREGORY RHYNEHART
[2008] ACTSC 47 (27 May 2008)

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Dinsdale v The Queen (1999) 202 CLR 321

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 108 of 2007

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 27 May 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCA 108 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:NIKIA CHATFIELD
Appellant

AND:ADAM GREGORY RHYNEHART
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  27 May 2008
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

Nikia Chatfield, the appellant, appeals from a sentence imposed in the ACT Magistrates Court on 15 November 2007. On that date, she was convicted and sentenced for dishonestly by deception obtaining a television from JB Hi-Fi on 17 May 2007 and ordered to sign an undertaking to comply with the good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 18 months subject to a probation condition.

On a further charge that she dishonestly by deception obtained alcohol and cigarettes from Woolworths Supermarket, Mawson on 17 May 2007, she was fined $300.00, ordered to pay $59.00 court costs and $50.00 criminal injuries compensation. It is these sentences that are the subject of the appeal.

There was a further charge that she used a vehicle with a deceptively changed number plate attached in respect of which she was fined $150.00. This conviction and sentence is not the subject of an appeal.

The appellant’s complaint on this appeal is that the sentence imposed by the magistrate is manifestly excessive and that this was a case where a non-conviction order should have been made by the magistrate pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act). Section 17 provides:

17 Non-conviction orders—general
(1)This section applies if an offender is found guilty of an offence.
(2)Without convicting the offender of the offence, the court may make either of the following orders (each of which is a non-conviction order):
(a)an order directing that the charge be dismissed, if the court is satisfied that it is not appropriate to impose any punishment (other than nominal punishment) on the offender;
(b)a good behaviour order under section 13.
NoteA good behaviour order for a non-conviction order cannot include a community service condition because the offender is not convicted of the offence (see s 87).

(3)In deciding whether to make a non-conviction order for the offender, the court must consider the following:
(a)the offender’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition;
(b)the seriousness of the offence;
(c)any extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed.

(4)The court may also consider anything else the court considers relevant.
NoteAn appeal may…

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 Rhynehart

Details

AGLC: Chatfield v Rhynehart [2008] ACTSC 47
Case: [2008] ACTSC 47
Decision Date: 27 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent against the sentence imposed by the primary court. Chatfield was the appellant and Rhynehart was the respondent. The nature of the dispute was the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court and whether it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court hearing the appeal was the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and whether the primary judge had failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the primary judge had failed to take into account mitigating factors such as the appellant's early guilty plea and his otherwise good character. The respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the primary judge had properly considered all relevant factors.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not excessive and that the primary judge had properly considered all relevant factors. The court found that the appellant's early guilty plea and good character were mitigating factors, but that they did not outweigh the seriousness of the crime committed. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime and that there was no error in the primary judge's sentencing process. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

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.