Legal Research
Cases
Darcy v Chambers

Darcy v Chambers

Case [2019] NTSC 18 22 March 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Darcy v Chambers [2019] NTSC 18
PARTIES:DARCY, Angus
v

CHAMBERS, Kim Trevenan

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from YOUTH JUSTICE COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 66 of 2018 (21837575)
DELIVERED ON:  22 March 2019
HEARING DATE:  20 March 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROPERTY OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT
Whether Youth Justice Court erred in recording convictions – principles which govern the sentencing of youths discussed – reasons detailed essential thrust of reasoning process applied by sentencing judge – reasons show why the step of recording the convictions was taken – no error of law arising by reason of failure to provide reasons – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account a relevant factor or took an irrelevant factor into consideration – whether the approach demonstrated error in disregarding an applicable principle or acting on a wrong principle – no process error established – whether recording convictions manifestly excessive – recording of convictions not so “egregiously erroneous” as to constitute sentencing error – appeal dismissed.
Abbott v Wilson [2017] NTSC 50, CI v Heath [2017] NTSC 38, Cook v Nash [2017] NTSC 14, DD v Cahill [2009] NTSC 62, Denham v Hales (2003) NTSC 87, Emitja v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 4, Gibson v Heath [2017] NTSC 72, Hanks v The Queen [2011] VSCA 7, Johnson v The Queen [2012] NTCCA 14, LA v Kennedy [2009] NTSC 56, M v Hill (1993) 114 FLR 59, M v Waldron (1988) 90 FLR 355 , Millar v Brown [2012] NTSC 23, Noakes v The Queen [2015] NTCCA 7, P (a minor) v Hill (1992) 110 FLR 42, Peach v Bird (2006) 17 NTLR 230, Pullman v Murphy [1999] NTSC 109, R v Horstmann [2010] SASC 103, R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17, Sanderson v Rabuntja (2014) 33 NTLR 205, Simmonds v Hill (1986) 38 NTR 31, TM v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 3, Truong v The Queen (2016) 35 NTLR 186, Verity v SB [2011] NTSC 26, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Emery
Respondent:  R Everitt
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA1905
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Darcy v Chambers [2019] NTSC 18

LCA 66 of 2018 (21837575)
BETWEEN:

ANGUS DARCY

Appellant

AND:

KIM TRAVENAN CHAMBERS

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 22 March 2019)
[1]This is an appeal against sentence imposed by the Youth Justice Court on 30 October 2018. The appellant contends that the sentencing judge erred in recording convictions for the offences of unlawful entry and stealing which were committed on 4 August 2018, and erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons for those dispositions.
The circumstances of the offending and offender
[2]On 30 October 2018…

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 Darcy v Chambers

Details

AGLC: Darcy v Chambers [2019] NTSC 18
Case: [2019] NTSC 18
Decision Date: 22 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darcy v Chambers involved the appellant, Darcy, challenging a decision of the Youth Justice Court which had recorded convictions against him. The nature of the dispute was whether the Youth Justice Court had erred in its judgment and sentencing process, particularly in recording the convictions against Darcy. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the proceedings and decisions of the Youth Justice Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Youth Justice Court had erred in law by failing to provide detailed reasons for recording the convictions against Darcy. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge had failed to take into account a relevant factor or had taken an irrelevant factor into consideration. The court also examined whether the sentencing judge's approach demonstrated an error in disregarding an applicable principle or acting on a wrong principle, and whether the recording of the convictions was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the Youth Justice Court had not erred in law by failing to provide detailed reasons for recording the convictions, as the reasons detailed in the judgment were sufficient to show the essential thrust of the reasoning process applied by the sentencing judge. The court found that the reasons provided demonstrated why the step of recording the convictions was taken, and that there was no error of law arising from the failure to provide more detailed reasons. Furthermore, the court concluded that the approach taken by the sentencing judge did not demonstrate an error in disregarding an applicable principle or acting on a wrong principle, and that the recording of the convictions was not so "egregiously erroneous" as to constitute a sentencing error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No specific final orders were detailed in the text, but it can be inferred that the dismissal of the appeal would mean the original decision of the Youth Justice Court stands affirmed.

Orders