Harrison v The Queen - [2022] SASCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
HARRISON v THE QUEEN
[2022] SASCA 35
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable President Livesey and the Honourable Justice David)
11 April 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - HOME DETENTION ORDERS
The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing harm with intent to cause harm, contrary to s 24 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). On 21 February 2022, the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, reduced to one year and 10 months’ imprisonment taking into account the applicant’s guilty plea and time served in custody and on home detention. A non-parole period of 11 months and one week was fixed.
The offending occurred behind play during an amateur football league grand final. The victim sustained serious injuries.
By Notice of Appeal dated 26 February 2022, the applicant sought to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and the sentencing Judge erred by not imposing a home detention order.
Held (by Livesey P and David JA):
1.The offending was not mitigated by the context in which it occurred; violent behaviour such as this on or off the sporting field is not tolerated by the community and it called for a strong response from the sentencing court.
2.It is not reasonably arguable that the sentencing Judge made any error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The sentence imposed was well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

3. Permission to appeal is refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 24, referred to.
Baird v Police SASC, unreported, Judgment S6325, 11 August 1997, BC 9704130; Birch v Fitzgerald (1975) 11 SASR 114; Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; Liddicoat v The Queen [2021] SASCA 18; McKenzie v Police [2015] SASC 78; Ndreka v The Queen [2021] SASCA 11; R v Jensen [1994] SASC 4452; Temby v Police [2015] SASC 198, considered.

HARRISON v THE QUEEN
[2022] SASCA 35
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Livesey P and David JA
THE COURT:

The applicant seeks permission to appeal against sentence.
On the first day of his trial, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing harm with intent to cause harm, contrary to s 24 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
During the Southern Football League B-Grade amateur grand final between Flagstaff Hill Football Club and Christies Beach Football Club there was an incident involving Nicholas Bailey (Bailey), a leading goal kicker with Flagstaff…

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 Harrison v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harrison v The Queen [2022] SASCA 35
Case: [2022] SASCA 35
Decision Date: 11 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the respondent, Harrison, by a sentencing judge. The appellant, the Crown, sought to appeal against the sentence. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the exercise of their discretion when imposing the sentence. Specifically, the Court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied general principles relating to non-custodial and custodial orders, including suspended sentences and home detention orders.

The Court, comprising Livesey P and David JA, held that the offending conduct was not mitigated by the context in which it occurred, stating that violent behaviour, whether on or off the sporting field, is not tolerated by the community and warrants a strong judicial response. The Court found that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentencing judge had made any error in the exercise of their discretion, concluding that the sentence imposed was well within the range of acceptable outcomes. Accordingly, permission to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held (by Livesey P and David JA):

1. The offending was not mitigated by the context in which it occurred; violent behaviour such as this on or off the sporting field is not tolerated by the community and it called for a strong response from the sentencing court.

2. It is not reasonably arguable that the sentencing Judge made any error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The sentence imposed was well within the range of acceptable outcomes.

3. Permission to appeal is refused.

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.