Legal Research
Cases
Court v Magtibay

Court v Magtibay

Case [2019] NTSC 12 25 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Court v Magtibay [2019] NTSC 12
PARTIES:COURT, Michael

v
MAGTIBAY, Lavina

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 17 of 2018 (21828282)
DELIVERED ON:  25 February 2019
HEARING DATE:  22 February 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT
Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – sentence imposed must reflect the objective seriousness of offence – there must be reasonable proportionality between the sentence passed and circumstances of the crime – mitigating subjective factors cannot operate to lead to sentence disproportionate to the crime – sentence manifestly inadequate – appeal allowed – respondent resentenced.
Criminal Code 1983 (NT) s 43AL, s 174E, s 174F
Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1928 (NT) s 163
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 8
Carnese v The Queen [2009] NTCCA 8, Demur v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 15, Director of Public Prosecutions v Janson [2011] VSCA 19, Director of Public Prosecution v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466, Director of Public Prosecution v Oates (2007) 47 MVR 483, Edmond & Moreen v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 9, Hales v Adams [2005] NTSC 86, Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349, R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209, R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566, R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152, R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252, The Queen v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111, The Queen v Mossman [2017] NTCCA 6, Toohey v Peach (2003) 141 A Crim R 437, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Lapinski
Respondent:  G Betts
Solicitors:
Appellant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Greg Betts, Barrister and Solicitor
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA1903
Number of pages:  15

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Court v Magtibay [2019] NTSC 12

LCA 17 of 2018 (21828282)
BETWEEN:

MICHAEL COURT

Appellant

AND:

LAVINA MAGTIBAY

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 25 February 2019)
[1]This is an appeal brought by the informant pursuant to s 163(1) of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1928 (NT) from an order or adjudication of the Local Court involving sentence.
[2]The issue for consideration is whether the imposition of a two-year good behaviour bond without conviction in respect of the offence of negligently causing serious harm contrary to s 174E of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) was manifestly inadequate having regard to the circumstances of the offending and the offender.
[3]The Court of Criminal Appeal has recently described the considerations governing Crown appeals against sentence in The Queen v Mossman.[1] They should be a rarity brought only to establish some matter of principle. Sentences which are so inadequate as to indicate error or departure from principle will constitute error in point of principle which the Crown is entitled to have corrected on appeal. The same considerations apply…

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 Court v Magtibay

Details

AGLC: Court v Magtibay [2019] NTSC 12
Case: [2019] NTSC 12
Decision Date: 25 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Court v Magtibay, the appellant was convicted for an offence and subsequently sentenced by a lower court. The respondent, dissatisfied with the sentence, appealed to a higher court arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and reflected the objective seriousness of the offence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was a reasonable proportionality between the sentence and the circumstances of the crime.

The court held that a sentence should not only consider the objective seriousness of the offence but also take into account any mitigating factors presented. However, it was crucial that these mitigating factors did not lead to a sentence that was disproportionate to the crime. The court found that in this instance, the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate as it did not appropriately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, nor did it maintain a reasonable proportionality with the circumstances of the crime. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced by the higher court.

The higher court emphasised the need for sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, ensuring that any mitigating factors considered did not result in a sentence that was disproportionate. The higher court then proceeded to impose a new sentence that it deemed appropriate for the offence committed by the respondent. This new sentence was reflective of the objective seriousness of the crime and maintained a reasonable proportionality with the circumstances of the offence.

Orders