Coombs v Police - [2001] SASC 87

COOMBS v POLICE

[2001] SASC 87

1................ MARTIN J. (Ex tempore) The appellant pleaded guilty before a Magistrate to a number of offences. He was sentenced to a total of 36 months imprisonment and a non-parole period of 12 months was fixed. He appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

On 8 March 2000 the appellant committed the offences of unlawful possession and making a false statement to a second-hand dealer. On 21 March 2000 he entered a residence as a trespasser and stole a quantity of property together of the value of $5529. On four further occasions in March 2000 he provided false information to a second-hand dealer. Pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 the Magistrate imposed a single penalty of 18 months imprisonment.
On 13 March 2000 the appellant committed the offence of aiding and abetting his co-offender, Ms Deborah Hancock, to commit an offence of serious criminal trespass. A sentence of 12 months imprisonment was imposed to be served cumulatively upon the period of 18 months previously mentioned.
In respect of a further offence of providing a false statement to a second-hand dealer, committed on 23 March 2000, the Magistrate recorded a conviction but did not impose a further penalty. For an offence committed between 27 March and 2 April 2000 of entering a place of residence as a trespasser and stealing a quantity of property of the value of about $5465 and cash in the amount of about $200, the Magistrate imposed a further period of 12 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the previous two sentences to which I have referred.
In addition to those offences of dishonesty, on 10 July 2000 the appellant drove a motor vehicle while he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of two months imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the three previous sentences of imprisonment. On 20 September 2000 the appellant again drove while disqualified and the vehicle he was driving was unregistered. A single sentence of two months imprisonment was imposed to be served cumulatively upon the previous four sentences. The penalties for driving while disqualified were imposed against a background that, having been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of three years as a consequence of a drink driving offence that occurred in July 1988, in November 1999 the appellant drove while disqualified. He was subsequently imprisoned for a period of 28 days.
The Magistrate accepted that the motive for the offences was to obtain cash or goods to be converted into cash in order to feed the appellant’s long standing drug habit and the habit of his co-accused, Ms Hancock. His Honour noted that Ms Hancock had been dealt with previously by a different Magistrate, but observed that he did not know anything about her prior history of offending, or what factors were taken into account when she was sentenced. His Honour…

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 Coombs v Police

Details

AGLC: Coombs v Police [2001] SASC 87
Case: [2001] SASC 87
Decision Date: 26 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant Coombs appealed against the sentence imposed on him by a Magistrate, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appellant had committed various offences including unlawful possession, making false statements to second-hand dealers, serious criminal trespass, and driving while disqualified. The Magistrate imposed a total sentence of 36 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The appellant argued that the Magistrate overlooked relevant factors and erred in imposing a single sentence for multiple offences.

The court examined whether the Magistrate overlooked any relevant factors or erred in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the Magistrate considered the appellant's plea of guilty and cooperation with the authorities, which led to a reduction in the total sentence. However, the court found that the Magistrate erred in imposing a single sentence of imprisonment for offences that are punishable by a fine only. The court also noted that the Magistrate failed to identify the particular sentence or sentences in respect of which the discount for the plea of guilty was applied.

The court concluded that the sentencing discretion had miscarried and exercised the sentencing discretion afresh. The court considered the appellant's addiction to amphetamine and his contrition. The court also considered the need for consistency in penalties between the appellant and his co-offender, Ms Hancock. The court imposed a single sentence of 31 months imprisonment for certain offences, with a non-parole period of 10 months. The court fixed the head sentence and non-parole period to commence on a specified date.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Magistrate were set aside. The court imposed a single sentence of 31 months imprisonment for certain offences, with a non-parole period of 10 months. The court fixed the head sentence and non-parole period to commence on a specified date. In respect of the remaining offences, no penalty was imposed.

Orders