Hoyt v Mickelson; Rendall v Mickelson - [2024] ACTSC 79

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Hoyt v Mickelson; Rendall v Mickelson
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 79
Hearing Date:	27 March 2024
Decision Date:	27 March 2024
Before:	Berman AJ
Decision:	(1) In the matter of Hoyt v Mickelson (SCA 56 of 2023), I grant leave for the appellant to discontinue the appeal. (2) In the matter of Rendall v Mickelson (SCA 57 of 2023), I grant leave for the appellant to discontinue the appeal.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court against sentences – where offenders sentenced for two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm – where sentences imposed for two separate victims were entirely concurrent – where offenders received essentially no further punishment for violently assaulting second victim – whether s 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) requires variation to be in a downwards direction – where Court reached tentative conclusion that appellants risked more severe sentence upon resentencing – parties given ‘Parker warning’ – leave granted for appeals to be withdrawn
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 218
Cases Cited:	Parker v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 282 Brand v Parson [1994] 1 VR 252 Heal v Police [1999] SASC 374; 75 SASR 331 McL v R [2000] HCA 46; 203 CLR 452
Parties:	David Hoyt (First Appellant) William Rendall ( Second Appellant) Samuel Mickelson ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel B Walker (First Appellant) F Coyne ( Second Appellant) K McCann ( Respondent)
Solicitors Walker Criminal Lawyers (First Appellant) Kamy Saeedi Law ( Second Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 56 of 2023 SCA 57 of 2023
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Christensen Date of Decision: 1 September 2023 Case Title: The Police v William Rendall The Police v David Hoyt Court File Numbers: CAN 1624/2023 CAN 1625/2023 CAN 1604/2023 CAN 1605/2023

BERMAN AJ:

Listed before me today were two appeals against sentences imposed on the appellants in the Magistrates Court. Both offenders had been sentenced for two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
The facts on which they were sentenced were disturbing. The Special Magistrate, who viewed CCTV footage of the offending taking place, used the word “savagery” in her judgment to describe what the offenders did. Most importantly, both offenders continued to attack, in a very violent way, the two victims of their assaults whilst those victims were unconscious. Those attacks included kicking, elbowing, hitting and picking up the unfortunate victims and dropping them. Both the victims were left with significant injuries which the Special Magistrate described as “lifelong”.
Having read her Honour’s judgment, the evidence in the Court below, and the written submissions filed on behalf of each appellant, I came to the view that it was appropriate that I warn the appellants that there was a possibility that continuing with their appeals would see their sentences increase…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hoyt v Mickelson; Rendall v Mickelson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] ACTSC 79
Decision Date: 27 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hoyt v Mickelson and Rendall v Mickelson, the appellants, Hoyt and Rendall, appealed against their sentences in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellants were sentenced for two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with the sentences imposed for the two separate victims being entirely concurrent. The appellants argued that their sentences were excessive, particularly in light of the lack of additional punishment for their violent assault on the second victim. The central issue before the court was whether section 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) mandated a variation in sentence to be in a downwards direction. The court examined the principle of totality and the need to ensure that the cumulative punishment reflected the overall culpability of the offenders. The court also considered the potential consequences for the appellants if they were to be resentenced.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory addressed the appellants' contentions by scrutinising the sentencing principles applicable in the context of concurrent sentencing. The court held that while the principle of totality was important, it did not automatically require a downward variation in sentence. The court took into account the need to maintain consistency in sentencing and the potential deterrent effect of the punishment. In reaching its decision, the court provided a tentative view that the appellants might face a more severe sentence if they were to be resentenced. Consequently, the court issued a ‘Parker warning’ to the appellants, advising them of the possible outcomes if the appeals were not withdrawn. Given the appellants' acknowledgment of the potential risks, the court granted leave for the appeals to be discontinued.

Following the court's reasoning, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made specific orders to reflect the outcome of the appeals. The court granted leave for Hoyt to discontinue the appeal in Hoyt v Mickelson (SCA 56 of 2023). Similarly, the court granted leave for Rendall to discontinue the appeal in Rendall v Mickelson (SCA 57 of 2023). These orders effectively concluded the appeals, leaving the original sentences in place. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the totality principle in sentencing, while also recognising the need to balance the interests of justice with the potential consequences for the appellants.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) In the matter of Hoyt v Mickelson (SCA 56 of 2023), I grant leave for the appellant to discontinue the appeal.

(2) In the matter of Rendall v Mickelson (SCA 57 of 2023), I grant leave for the appellant to discontinue the appeal.

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.