Dhununba v Firth - [2018] NTSC 60

CITATION:Dhununba v Firth [2018] NTSC 60
PARTIES:DHUNUNBA, Wesley
v

FIRTH, Justin

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 35 of 2018 (21807832)
LCA 36 of 2018 (21817699)

DELIVERED ON:  27 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Darwin
HEARING DATE:  27 August 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROPERTY OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT
Whether sentences manifestly excessive – whether cumulation lead to manifestly excessive total effective sentence – appeal dismissed.
Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act (NT) s 163
Sentencing Act (NT) s 51
Barav The Queen [2016] NTCCA 5, Carroll v The Queen (2011) 29 NTLR 106, Emitja v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 4, Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, Morrow v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 7, Nguyen v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 14, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:In person
Respondent:  A Hilder-Achurch
Solicitors:
Appellant:Not applicable
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA1820
Number of pages:  6

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Dhununba v Firth [2018] NTSC 60

LCA 35 of 2018 (21807832)
LCA 36 of 2018 (21817699)
BETWEEN:

WESLEY DHUNUNBA

Appellant

AND:

JUSTIN FIRTH

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 27 August 2018)

These are two related appeals against sentence brought pursuant to s 163 of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act (NT).
On 9 May 2018, the appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted by the Local Court of one count of aggravated assault in file number 21817699 and one count of assaulting a person in the performance of her work duties in file number 21807832. The maximum penalty for the first offence was imprisonment for five years and the maximum penalty for the second offence was imprisonment for three years.
The sentencing judge imposed a penalty of imprisonment for five months for the assault on the worker and imprisonment for three months for the aggravated assault, with two months of that second sentence to be served cumulatively on the first. The total effective period of imprisonment was seven months.
On 6 June 2018 the appellant filed notices of appeal in respect of both sentences contending that they were manifestly excessive, both individually and in their total effect. The appellant is self-represented in the appeals.
The assault against the worker took place first in time. On 15 February 2018 the appellant’s son was receiving treatment at the Royal Darwin Hospital. The appellant was in attendance on that day, but at some point in the evening he went to an unknown location where he consumed alcohol and became intoxicated. He then returned in that state to the ward to which his son had been admitted.
The victim was a 28-year-old female nurse on duty on that ward. At approximately nine o’clock that evening she heard the appellant yelling loudly and swearing on the ward. When she…

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 Dhununba v Firth

Details

AGLC: Dhununba v Firth [2018] NTSC 60
Case: [2018] NTSC 60
Decision Date: 27 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dhununba v Firth involved an appellant, Dhununba, appealing against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court. The appellant was convicted of various property offences, and the court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the cumulative effect of these sentences led to an overall sentence that was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant argued that the original sentences were too harsh and should be reviewed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences for the individual offences were manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes. The court also had to assess whether the cumulative effect of these sentences resulted in an overall punishment that was manifestly excessive. This involved a detailed examination of the sentencing principles and the discretion exercised by the lower court in imposing the sentences.

The court found that the sentences for the individual offences were not manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances of each crime. The court also concluded that the cumulative effect of the sentences did not result in a manifestly excessive total effective sentence. The court emphasised that it was not its role to re-sentence but to ensure that the original sentences were within the bounds of what could be considered a reasonable punishment for the offences committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court's decision underscored the importance of respecting the original sentencing decisions made by the lower court, provided they were within the legal parameters of the law and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders