Glenn v Dixon - [2005] NTSC 33

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] Glenn v Dixon [2005] NTSC 33

PARTIES: GLENN, Casey

v

DIXON, Garnet Alan

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 16 of 2005 (20501705, 20422323, 20423437)

DELIVERED: 23 June 2005

HEARING DATES: 17 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: W. Smith
Respondent: C. Roberts

Solicitors:
Appellant: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0514
Number of pages: 12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Glenn v Dixon [2005] NTSC 33
No JA 16 of 2005 (20501705, 20422323, 20423437)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs

BETWEEN:

GLENN, Casey
Appellant

AND:

DIXON, Garnet Alan
Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 23 June 2005)

[1] On 23 February 2005 the appellant was sentenced in relation to offences of driving a motor vehicle on a public street whilst disqualified from holding a driver’s licence and also having failed to provide a sample of breath sufficient for the completion of a breath analysis, pursuant to the terms of the Traffic Act. The relevant file was numbered 20501705. In relation to that offending an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for eight months was imposed upon the appellant.
[2] The conviction for those two offences constituted a breach of the terms of suspended sentences imposed upon the appellant in relation to two other matters and, in relation to those matters, the learned sentencing magistrate restored the sentence and ordered that he serve it. This resulted in a further period of imprisonment of seven months to be served on file 20423437 and a further period of imprisonment of three months, being the sentence in relation to file number 20422323 from which was to be deducted the period of 40 days already served in respect of those sentences. The sentences were deemed to commence on 20 January 2005. On 2 March 2005 his Worship reconvened the court to correct an error in the non-parole period. At that time he observed that the total effective period of imprisonment imposed and restored on the three files was 16 months and 20 days and he set a non-parole period of eight months and 10 days.
[3] The appellant appeals against the sentence on three grounds, namely:
“1. The sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
2. The learned magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the principle of totality in fixing a total effective sentence.
3. The learned magistrate erred in declining to allow any of the periods of imprisonment to be served concurrently.”
[4] The circumstances in relation to the traffic offences which were before the court (file 20501705) were that on 20 January 2005 the appellant was driving…

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 Glenn v Dixon

Details

AGLC: Glenn v Dixon [2005] NTSC 033
Case: [2005] NTSC 33
Decision Date: 23 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Casey Glenn (the appellant) appealed against a sentence imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The appeal concerned a sentence of imprisonment for offences of driving while disqualified and failing to provide a breath sample for analysis. The appeal was based on three grounds: the sentence was manifestly excessive, the sentencing magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the principle of totality in fixing the total effective sentence, and the magistrate erred in declining to allow any of the periods of imprisonment to be served concurrently. The sentencing magistrate had considered the appellant's history of similar offences and his breach of suspended sentences, and imposed a sentence that reflected the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the application of the totality principle, and found that while the sentence was at the upper end of the range, it was not manifestly excessive. The court allowed the appeal to correct an arithmetical error in the calculation of the sentence, but otherwise found no error in the sentencing magistrate's approach or reasoning.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the sentence on file 20501705 from eight months to seven months, to set an effective total period of imprisonment of 15 months and 20 days, and to impose a non-parole period of eight months. The sentences and the non-parole period were to be deemed to have commenced on 20 January 2005. The orders for restoration and cumulation were to remain.

Orders