IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE) ) No. SCA 16 of 2010 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY)
BELINDA GROOMS
Appellant
v
DAMIEN GLEN TOOHEY
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J Date: 16 February 2012 Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be upheld.
The sentence imposed on 10 February 2010 in the Magistrates Court be set aside.
The appellant be resentenced.
The proceedings be listed for sentence.
On 4 December 2009, the appellant, Belinda Grooms, was arrested and charged with having, between 30 November and 4 December 2009, trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine. The offence, contrary to
s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), rendered Ms Grooms liable to a maximum penalty of 1 000 penalty units (a fine of $110 000) or ten years’ imprisonment or both.
372; [30]–[31]), but also because of the social ravage that the distribution and use of the drug can cause.
Ultimately, Ms Grooms pleaded guilty to this and another offence, referred to below (at [15]). She was convicted of the offences. The convictions constituted a breach of a Good Behaviour Order of eighteen months imposed…
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 Grooms v Toohey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28
Case
[2012] ACTSC 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Grooms was convicted by the Magistrates Court of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition, and the court sentenced him to a total of two years imprisonment, to be served in a corrective services centre. The respondent, Toohey, appealed the sentence on the basis of several grounds, including that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to give sufficient weight to certain mitigating factors. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction.
The primary legal issue for the court was whether the appeal should be upheld, and if so, on what grounds. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive, and whether there were any errors in the assessment of the mitigating factors. The court also had to determine whether the admission of fresh evidence on appeal was appropriate and whether it warranted a re-sentencing of the respondent.
The court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive, and that the court had failed to give sufficient weight to certain mitigating factors. The court held that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed, and that the Magistrates Court had not adequately considered the mitigating factors presented. The court also found that the admission of fresh evidence on appeal was appropriate, as it provided additional context and information that was not available at the time of the original sentencing. The court concluded that the appeal should be upheld, and that the respondent should be re-sentenced.
The appeal was therefore upheld, and the case was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing. The court noted that the re-sentencing should take into account all relevant factors, including the mitigating factors that were not adequately considered in the original sentencing. The court did not specify any particular sentence, leaving that decision to the Magistrates Court.