Legal Research
Cases
Ellis v The Queen

Ellis v The Queen

Case [2005] NTCCA 1 14 January 2005

Type to search within this case.

Ellis v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 1
PARTIES:ELLIS, Tryston Darryl

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 9 of 2004 (20011218, 20212024, 20313886, 20322983, 20403811, 20318617, 20322984, 20403825, 20322980, 20403799, 20403828, 20322981, 20403807, 20403829, 20322982, 20403809)
DELIVERED:  14 January 2005
HEARING DATES:  7 December 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL &
THOMAS JJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Appeal – sentence – totality – multiple offences - 46 counts of dishonesty– juvenile - head sentence of imprisonment of 12 years imprisonment – non-parole period of 6 years imprisonment – whether manifestly excessive – whether addiction has a mitigating effect on sentence - appeal allowed
Criminal Code Act (NT) s 210(1); s 213(1), (4) & (5); s 218(1) &(2)(c); s 229(1) & (4); and s 251(1) &(2)(d)
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, at 62, 63; Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372, at 393; The Queen v Rossi (1988) 142 LSJS 451, at 453; R v Proom (2003) 85 SASR 120, para 49 – 51; applied

The Queen v Creed 37 SASR 1985 566, at 568; Postiglione v The Queen 1997 189 CLR 295 ; R v Major (1998) 70 SASR 488; R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395; considered

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Cox QC
Respondent:  M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:NTLAC
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:         A
Judgment ID Number:  Mar0501
Number of pages:  37

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Ellis v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 1

No. CA 9 of 2004 (20011218, 20212024, 20313886, 20322983, 20403811, 20318617, 20322984, 20403825, 20322980, 20403799, 20403828, 20322981, 20403807, 20403829, 20322982, 20403809)
BETWEEN:

TRYSTON DARRYL ELLIS

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL & THOMAS JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 14 January 2005)
Martin (BR) CJ:

This is an appeal against sentences imposed by a Judge for 46 offences of dishonesty. As a result of the sentences, the appellant is liable to serve a total period of twelve years imprisonment in respect of which a non-parole period of six years was fixed.
In order to understand the totality of the criminal conduct with which the Judge was faced, a copy of the Indictment is annexed to these reasons. It is necessary to set out the relevant events in a chronological order.
The appellant was born on 12 August 1985. He first came to the attention of the Juvenile Court in 1999 at the age of 13 years. Between July 1999 and June 2002 the appellant committed numerous offences of dishonesty for which he was dealt with by the Juvenile Court between July 1999 and September 2002.
On 14 February 2003 the appellant appeared before the Judge who sentenced him on the occasion under consideration. The appellant was then aged 14 years. He pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery which the Judge described as at the…

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 Ellis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ellis v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 1
Case: [2005] NTCCA 1
Decision Date: 14 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ellis appealed his sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, imposed by the District Court of Western Australia, following his conviction on 46 counts of dishonesty. The appeal concerned whether the head sentence was manifestly excessive and whether Ellis's addiction had a mitigating effect on the sentence.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal of Western Australia were whether the sentencing judge erred in their assessment of the totality of the offending and whether the addiction of the appellant was given sufficient weight as a mitigating factor. The court was required to consider the cumulative effect of the numerous dishonesty offences and the impact of the appellant's drug addiction on his culpability and the appropriate sentencing response.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the head sentence was manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the offences and the mitigating effect of the appellant's addiction. The court acknowledged that while addiction does not excuse criminal conduct, it can be a significant factor in reducing an offender's moral culpability and thus influence the severity of the sentence imposed. The court varied the sentence, reducing the head sentence and the non-parole period.

Orders