Harlovich v Sebbens

Case [2024] ACTSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Harlovich v Sebbens

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 153

Hearing Date: 

23 August 2022

Referral to Full Court

1 December 2022

Decision Date: 

7 June 2024

No further submissions confirmed

23 January 2024

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision: 

1)    Appeal dismissed

2) Pursuant to s 219F(8) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the costs of and incidental to the appeal are payable by the appellant

Catchwords: 

APPEAL - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal from the Magistrates Court against sentence – drive while disqualified – residual discretion - matter heard subsequent to referral to full court – Galambany Circle Sentencing Court – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 10

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 85

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ch 4C, pt 3.10,

ss 219B(1)(f), 219D(e), 219F, 291M,

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 32(1), 32(9)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 13(3)

Cases Cited: 

Adams v Navaratnam [2021] ACTSC 256

Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346

Chapman v Cottle [2022] ACTSC 330

Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299

Cowie v Gungahlin Veterinary Services Pty Ltd [2016] ACTSC 311

Croatto v Banks [2015] ACTSC 398

Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48; 19 ACTLR 264

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321

Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483

Everett v the Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295

Fall v Vuolo [2022] ACTSC 249

Garay v The Queen (No 3) [2023] ACTCA 2

Gordon v Reddin [2013] ACTSC 87

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293

Hall v CL [2015] ACTSC 286

Harlovich v Sebbens [2022] ACTSC 331

Harlovich v Sebbens [2023] ACTSCFC 3; 20 ACTLR 237

Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499

Kaye v Siddiq [2013] ACTSC 62

Kirby v Ali [2021] ACTSC 95; 358 FLR 288

Kinnane v Beattie [2022] ACTSC 265; 372 FLR 358

Knight v Birch (1992) 106 ACTR 27; 106 FLR 109

LM v Childrens Court of the Australian Capital Territory [2014] ACTSC 26

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Owen Patterson v Wendy Brookman [2021] ACTMC 16

Police v Cadd (1997) 69 SASR 150

R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261

R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489; 136 A Crim R 451

R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105

R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133

R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7

R v Lattouf (Unreported, NSW…

Continue reading Harlovich v Sebbens

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harlovich v Sebbens [2024] ACTSC 153
Case
[2024] ACTSC 153
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harlovich v Sebbens, the appellant, Harlovich, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court following his conviction for driving while disqualified. The case was referred to the full court for consideration, with the sentencing matter heard at the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly inadequate.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to driving while disqualified and the factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate penalty. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offence or the need for general deterrence. The respondent, Sebbens, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the Magistrates Court had exercised its discretion properly.

The court held that the Magistrates Court had considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate and that the Magistrates Court had exercised its residual discretion appropriately. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs of and incidental to the appeal were ordered to be paid by the appellant pursuant to section 219F(8) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

Orders

Orders of the court

1) Appeal dismissed

2) Pursuant to s 219F(8) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the costs of and incidental to the appeal are payable by the appellant

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.