Hume v Moore - [2003] NTSC 84

Hume v Moore [2003] NTSC 84
PARTIES:ROBIN KATE HUME

v
DAVID MOORE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA 51/03 (20219313)
DELIVERED:  23 July 2003
HEARING DATES:  29 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person – judgment and punishment – appeal against decision not to suspend sentence – whether magistrate erred in giving insufficient weight to the subjective circumstances of the appellant.
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 188(2)
Cramer & Ors v The Queen & Anor [1998] WASCA 300, R v Griffin [1997] QCA 115, Bresnehan v R (1992) 1 Tas R 234, Sandell v Korber [1993] SASC 4295, Hodgson v Police [2002] SASC 35, considered.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Barlow
Respondent:  G Dooley
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  tho200324
Number of pages:  9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hume v Moore [2003] NTSC 84
No. JA 51/03 (20219313)

BETWEEN:
ROBIN KATE HUME

Appellant
AND:
DAVID MOORE

Respondent

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 23 July 2003)

This is an appeal from a sentence of a stipendiary magistrate imposed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin on 12 March 2003.
The appellant was convicted jointly with her co-offender Edward Peckham of the following offence to which they had each entered a plea of guilty.
That on 1 September 2002 at Berry Springs in the Northern Territory of Australia unlawfully assaulted Kaitlyn Liddy and that the said unlawful assault involved the following circumstances of aggravation:
(i)That the said Kaitlyn Liddy was under the age of 16 years, namely five years and the said Robin Kate Hume and Edward Peckham were adults.
(ii)That the said Kaitlyn Liddy was unable to effectually defend herself due to age.
(iii)That the said Kaitlyn Liddy was threatened with an offensive weapon, namely an electrical cord.
Contrary to s 188(2) of the Criminal Code.
The facts in support of the charge as read out to the learned stipendiary magistrate are as follows (tp 6 - 8):
“Mr Moore: ….. the defendant in this matter is a 32 [later corrected to 23] year old female and is the mother of the victim a 5-year old female. The co-offender is Eddie Peckham. He is in a de facto relationship with this defendant. At the time of the offences all three resided at a caravan on an isolated block in Berry Springs.
In early September 2002 the defendant and co-offender were inside the caravan when the co-offender told the victim to have an afternoon sleep. The co-offender became angry when the victim did not go to sleep.
His Worship: This is Peckham?
Mr Moore: That’s correct sir. And took a nearby extension cord, looped the end of this and struck the victim a number of times while the defendant held…

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 Hume v Moore

Details

AGLC: Hume v Moore [2003] NTSC 84
Case: [2003] NTSC 84
Decision Date: 23 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hume, appealed against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, which found him guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The respondent, Moore, was the victim of the assault. The appeal centred on the sentencing decision made by the magistrate, specifically the refusal to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant argued that the magistrate did not adequately consider the subjective circumstances of his case when deciding not to suspend the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had erred in giving insufficient weight to the subjective circumstances of the appellant when deciding not to suspend the sentence. The appellant submitted that the magistrate should have considered his personal background, including his employment status, family responsibilities, and remorse, in determining whether to suspend the sentence. The court was required to assess whether the magistrate's decision was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the principles governing the suspension of sentences, including the need to balance the interests of justice and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court held that the magistrate had adequately considered the relevant factors in the appellant's case and that the decision not to suspend the sentence was not unreasonable. The court found that the magistrate had given sufficient weight to the subjective circumstances of the appellant and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the appeal, as the appeal was dismissed. The appellant remained liable to serve the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

Orders