Foley v Police

Case [2008] SASC 338


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

FOLEY v POLICE

[2008] SASC 338

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kourakis

2 December 2008

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - SOUTH AUSTRALIA

MAGISTRATES - APPEALS AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

Appeal against sentence - appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of driving while disqualified and one count of theft in the Magistrates Court - appellant was convicted and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment for each count of driving while disqualified and one week imprisonment for theft, with those sentences being cumulative - offences committed while appellant was on parole - appellant therefore required to serve his unexpired parole in prison - total custodial sentence of two years, 10 months and 13 days imprisonment - Magistrate fixed non-parole of 16 months - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether Magistrate erred in ordering that sentences be served cumulatively - whether error of approach in determining non-parole period - whether non-parole period manifestly excessive.

Held:  Sentence is not manifestly excessive - Magistrate did not err in ordering that sentences be served cumulatively - no error of principle in determining non-parole period - non-parole period not manifestly excessive - appeal dismissed.

Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s91; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s134; Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) s75; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s31(2), s32, referred to.
R v Creed (1985) 37 SASR 566; R v Major (1998) 70 SASR 488; R v Power [2003] SASC 288; R v Matthews [2008] SASC 259; R v Wilson (1999) 203 LSJS 459, applied.
Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150, considered.

FOLEY v POLICE
[2008] SASC 338

Magistrates Appeal

  1. KOURAKIS J       The appellant appeals against the sentences imposed on him in the Magistrates Court on 11 September 2008.  The offences for which the appellant was convicted and the sentences imposed are as follows:

    ·An offence against s 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 of driving while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence, on Christmas Day 2007.  The appellant was imprisoned for six weeks.

    ·An offence against s 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 of driving while disqualified committed on 2 January 2008.  The appellant was sentenced to a further six weeks imprisonment, cumulative upon the earlier sentence.

    ·An offence of theft of two chocolate bars (s 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) committed on 28 February 2008.  The appellant was sentenced to a further period of imprisonment for one week, again cumulative on the earlier sentences.

  2. The maximum penalty for the offences committed in December 2007 and January 2008 is two years imprisonment because the appellant had been convicted in 1999…

Continue reading Foley v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338
Case
[2008] SASC 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Foley v Police involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of driving while disqualified and one count of theft in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. The appellant was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment for each count of driving while disqualified and one week imprisonment for theft, with these sentences to be served cumulatively. Given that the offences were committed while the appellant was on parole, he was also required to serve his unexpired parole term in prison. This resulted in a total custodial sentence of two years, 10 months, and 13 days imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 months fixed by the Magistrate.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the Magistrate erred in ordering the sentences to be served cumulatively, and whether there was an error of principle in determining the non-parole period. The appellant argued that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive and that the Magistrate had made an error in calculating it.

The Supreme Court of South Australia found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the Magistrate did not err in ordering that the sentences be served cumulatively, as this was consistent with the statutory requirements and the nature of the offences. The court also found no error of principle in the Magistrate's determination of the non-parole period, concluding that it was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

In conclusion, the court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the principles of cumulative sentencing in cases where offenders commit multiple offences while on parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

KOURAKIS J
For those reasons I hold that the non-parole period is not manifestly excessive.Conclusion I dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KOURAKIS J

Full text does not contain this section.