Ettridge v Police - [2022] SASC 121

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
ETTRIDGE v POLICE
[2022] SASC 121
Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis
21 September 2022
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES - STALKING - SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
This is an appeal against sentence following the appellant entering a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of unlawful stalking. The Magistrate sentenced the appellant to a starting point of 16 months imprisonment, which was reduced for the appellant’s plea of guilty to 14 months and 12 days, and further reduced for time in custody on home detention bail to 10 months. The appellant appeals this sentence on the following grounds:
1.The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.
2.The learned sentencing Magistrate erred by failing to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the unlikelihood of the appellant reoffending.
Held, per Kourakis CJ, allowing the appeal:
1.The starting point for a first offence against s 19AA(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) for conduct in the middle range of seriousness and with less culpable intention is too high.
2.The starting point of 16 months did not allow sufficient differentiation between the appellant’s offence and more serious, recidivist offending.
3.The appellant was not entitled to the leniency a person of previous good character might have been afforded, but he was not to be punished again for his prior offending. There was, in his history and rehabilitation whilst on bail, some reason to regard his future prospects as reasonably good.
4.The sentence is set aside, and the matter is listed for further submissions on 30 November 2022.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19AA; Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) s 7(1), referred to.

ETTRIDGE v POLICE
[2022] SASC 121
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

KOURAKIS CJ: This is an appeal by Mr Ettridge against a sentence of 10 months imprisonment imposed in the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court on his conviction of an offence contrary to s 19AA(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA). Mr Ettridge appeals against that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. On 21 September 2022, I made an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court. I adjourned the hearing of submissions on the resentencing of Mr Ettridge to a later date.
The offending
Mr Ettridge pleaded guilty to the offence of stalking the victim, Ms C, between 1 November 2018 and 28 January 2019. Mr Ettridge was initially charged with additional counts of using a surveillance device contrary to s 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA). Mr Ettridge had placed the devices in a car used by Ms C. Those charges were withdrawn on Mr Ettridge pleading guilty to the stalking charge.
In 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 Ettridge v Police

Details

AGLC: Ettridge v Police [2022] SASC 121
Case: [2022] SASC 121
Decision Date: 21 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ettridge v Police involved the defendant who was convicted of stalking and subsequently appealed the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the primary concern was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the stalking offence.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This involved examining the principles of sentencing, including the nature of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court also considered whether the sentence was in line with other cases of similar nature and whether it achieved the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of South Australia found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the stalking offence but noted that the sentence was within the range of penalties typically imposed for such crimes. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and that the sentence reflected the specific circumstances of the case, including the defendant's background and the impact on the victim. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's sentence.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court's decision reinforced the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when imposing sentences for stalking offences, while also upholding the principle of proportionality in the sentencing process.

Orders