Hales v Nebro - [2003] NTSC 2

Hales v Nebro [2003] NTSC 2
PARTIES:HALES, Peter William

v
NEBRO, Laura Jane

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 77 of 2002
DELIVERED:  15 January 2003
HEARING DATES:  25 November 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:G Fisher
Respondent:  P Cantrill
Solicitors:
Appellant:Cwth DPP
Respondent:  Bill Piper
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0301
Number of pages:  17

Mar0301
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hales v Nebro [2003] NTSC 2
No. JA77 of 2002

BETWEEN:
PETER WILLIAM HALES

Appellant
AND:
LAURA JANE NEBRO

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 15 January 2003)

Prosecution appeal against sentence brought pursuant to s 163 of the Justices Act (NT). It arises from an order made in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting at Darwin on 16 July 2002 whereby upon finding the respondent guilty upon two counts upon complaint laid under the provisions of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act (Cwth), the respondent was discharged without conviction.

The grounds of appeal contain much detail by way of particulars, but revolve around suggested errors on the part of his Worship in the exercise of a discretion by failing to take into account the matters outlined in s 16A of the Crimes Act (Cwth) before exercising those powers under s 19B of the Act, failing to give adequate weight to matters adverse to the appellant, improperly taking into account the personal experiences and opinions and making erroneous findings of fact. It is also said that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
There is contained in s 16A a number of matters to which a court is to have regard when passing sentence including, particularly for these purposes, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree to which the offender has shown contrition, the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on the offender, the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence and the character, antecedents, cultural background, age, means and physical or mental condition of the offender. It is now accepted that the list contained in s 16A(2) is not exhaustive in that the court may take into account “any other matters” including, general deterrence (Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v L El Karhani (1990) 97 ALR 373).
The offences for which the respondent was found guilty, after trial, were that on 23 May 2001 at Casuarina she, being in or on Commonwealth premises, namely Centrelink, refused to leave those premises on being directed to do so by a constable (s 12(2)(c) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act) and at the same time and place she behaved in a disorderly manner in that she was yelling and screaming contrary to s 12(2)(b) of that Act. His Worship dismissed a third charge arising from the same incident in which it was…

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 Hales v Nebro

Details

AGLC: Hales v Nebro [2003] NTSC 2
Case: [2003] NTSC 2
Decision Date: 15 January 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hales v Nebro involved an appeal by the prosecution against a sentence imposed by his Worship in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin. The respondent, Laura Jane Nebro, was found guilty of two counts of violating the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act by refusing to leave Centrelink premises and behaving in a disorderly manner. The appeal focused on the sentence, arguing that the magistrate failed to consider relevant factors and took into account irrelevant matters when exercising discretion under the Crimes Act. The court needed to decide whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence, the respondent's contrition, and other relevant factors.

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, exercising its territory jurisdiction, reviewed the appeal. The court identified specific errors in the magistrate's sentencing process, including the consideration of irrelevant matters and failure to properly weigh adverse factors. The court found that the magistrate's personal experiences and opinions improperly influenced the sentencing decision. The court also noted that the respondent's cultural background and age did not render it inexpedient to inflict punishment. The court set aside the original order of discharge without conviction and imposed a fine of $25 on the first count and $10 on the second count, with three months to pay.

The court emphasized the need to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment and correct errors in the sentencing process. The decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors and avoiding personal biases when sentencing offenders. The court's judgment ensures that appropriate penalties are imposed in line with sentencing principles and the gravity of the offence.

Orders