Drayton v The Queen

Case [2013] ACTCA 44

KURT JOHN DRAYTON v THE QUEEN
[2013] ACTCA 44 (31 October 2013)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – appeal against non-parole period – defendant sought shorter non-parole on the basis of rehabilitative prospects while on parole – no specific error shown – non-parole period not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 65, Pt 4.4

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA – 21 of 2013
No. SCC 184 of 2012
No. SCC 26 of 2013

Judges:        Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Penfold JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           31 October 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA – 21 of 2012

)          No. SCC 184 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 26 of 2013
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

KURT JOHN DRAYTON

V

THE QUEEN

ORDER

Judges:  Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Penfold JJ
Date:  31 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA – 21 of 2012

)          No. SCC 184 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 26 of 2013
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

KURT JOHN DRAYTON

V

THE QUEEN

Judges:  Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Penfold JJ
Date:  31 October 2013
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. Kurt John Drayton, the appellant, is a 32 year-old man with a significant intellectual disability.  He and his then partner came to Canberra to address their drug addiction through the Opiate Treatment Service.  The relationship was a volatile one, however, and on 23 June 2012, Mr Drayton and his partner had a fight.  As a result, Mr Drayton became upset and left where they were living. 

  1. He went to the Woden Bus Interchange, kicking some items, including a wall which he damaged, and then took a bin into the toilet block there, intending to light a fire in it to keep warm.  He soon left the fire without attempting to put it out.  The fire spread and caused extensive structural damage to the area. 

  1. Mr Drayton was identified from CCTV footage and later arrested.  He made admissions in an interview and was charged with arson and damaging property.  He was committed for sentence to this Court on 14 August 2012. 

THE OFFENCES

  1. He was later charged with four burglaries and two thefts committed in 2013, for which, following his pleas of guilty, he was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on 22 February 2013. He was also charged with a number of other offences which were later…

Continue reading Drayton v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Drayton v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 44
Case
[2013] ACTCA 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Drayton, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland against the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge. The dispute concerned whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive, with the appellant arguing for a shorter period based on his rehabilitative prospects while on parole.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in fixing the non-parole period, specifically whether it was demonstrably excessive in light of the appellant's circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. The Court was required to consider if any specific error in the sentencing process had occurred.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found no specific error in the sentencing judge's determination. It applied the principle that an appellate court will only intervene if the sentence is manifestly excessive, meaning it is outside the bounds of what a reasonable sentencing judge, properly applying the law, could have imposed. The Court concluded that the non-parole period was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal could not succeed on this ground.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

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.