Evans v Davis - [2002] NTSC 67

Evans v Davis [2002] NTSC 67
PARTIES:MATTHEW ROBERT EVANS

v
STUART AXTELL DAVIS

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA 79/02 (20119576)
DELIVERED:  18 December 2002
HEARING DATES:  6 November 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the sentencing magistrate was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the offender –Breach of trust in stealing from employer – Imprisonment a sanction of last resort.
Criminal Code (NT) s 210
Ragget Douglas and Miller v R (1990) 50 A Crim R 41, R v Bird 56 NTR 17, applied.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I. Read
Respondent:  A. Fraser
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  tho200213
Number of pages:  6

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Evans v Davis [2002] NTSC 67
No. JA 79/02 (20119576)

BETWEEN:
MATTHEW ROBERT EVANS

Appellant
AND:
STUART AXTELL DAVIS

Respondent

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 December 2002)

This is an appeal from a sentence of the Chief Magistrate who convicted the appellant of an offence of stealing and sentenced him to one month imprisonment suspended forthwith on condition the appellant be of good behaviour for twelve months.
The exact charge to which the appellant pleaded guilty is set out as follows:
On 10 November 2001, at Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia
1.did steal cash, valued at $27.95, the property of Liquorland Casuarina Village.
Contrary to Section 210 of the Criminal Code.
The agreed facts are as follows:
“… in September 2001 the defendant, Mr Evans, was employed by Liquorland Casuarina Village to complete a two year traineeship as a retail manager. On Saturday 10 November 2001 the defendant was working an evening shift by himself at the Casuarina Village store.
At 8.45 pm a customer approached the defendant and placed a 700 ml bottle of bourbon and two bottles of coke on the counter. The defendant scanned the items for the customer to purchase, bringing the total purchase price to $27.95. The customer handed over the cash to the defendant, and the customer walked away without a receipt and left the store with the purchased goods.
The defendant placed the cash, being $27.95, into his wallet and placed his wallet into his back pocket. He then cancelled the transaction by hitting the void button on the register. Some time later the defendant wrote on the back of the void receipt: ‘Customer was not decided/other customers waiting’.
At 9.22 am on Friday 14 December 2001, the defendant participated in a formal record of interview. The defendant - - -
…..
… It is indicated that full admissions were made during the interview, Your Worship. He was advised he would be summonsed for the offence.
When asked for his reasons for stealing, the defendant said:…

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 Evans v Davis

Details

AGLC: Evans v Davis [2002] NTSC 67
Case: [2002] NTSC 67
Decision Date: 18 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Evans v Davis involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate. The appellant, Evans, had been found guilty of stealing from his employer, an act which breached the trust placed in him. The sentence of imprisonment was challenged as being manifestly excessive, given the nature of the offence and the offender's circumstances. The central legal issue was whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crime, considering imprisonment as a sanction of last resort.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to ensure that imprisonment is used only as a last resort. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the breach of trust involved, as well as the personal circumstances of the offender. The court highlighted that the primary aim of sentencing is to achieve just outcomes, taking into account both the gravity of the offence and the individual characteristics of the offender. Given these considerations, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately reflected the seriousness of the breach of trust and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system.

In conclusion, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the magistrate, finding that it was not manifestly excessive. The decision underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing, while also acknowledging the need to address breaches of trust in the workplace. The court's reasoning emphasised the role of imprisonment as a sanction of last resort, while affirming the magistrate's discretion in imposing a sentence that balanced the interests of justice with the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders