Ian Arthur Lane v SA Police No. SCGRG 93/584 Judgment No. 3949 Number of Pages 5 Criminal Law and Procedure

In this case, the appellant, Ian Arthur Lane, appealed against his sentencing for breaking and entering a dwelling house at Nailsworth. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment by a magistrate. The appeal was based on the argument that the magistrate declined to set a non-parole period, and made an error in his sentencing remarks regarding the date of the appellant's release on parole. The court was required to decide whether the error made by the magistrate was critical, and whether the magistrate failed to pay due regard to the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's past behaviour. The court found that the error made by the magistrate was not critical, and that the magistrate had not failed to consider the circumstances of the offence or the appellant's past behaviour. The court held that the discretion to decline to fix a non-parole period had not miscarried, and dismissed the appeal.

The court considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and found that the magistrate had been properly advised of the appellant's release on parole on 28 September 1992, but had made an error in his sentencing remarks by referring to `December' instead of `September'. However, the court found that this error was not critical, as the magistrate had correctly calculated the period of imprisonment that the appellant had to serve. The court also found that the magistrate had not failed to give due regard to the circumstances of the offence or the appellant's past behaviour. The court considered the appellant's criminal history, which included numerous offences since 1971, and found that the magistrate had properly exercised his discretion to decline to fix a non-parole period. The court dismissed the appeal, and held that the appellant had to serve a total period of 3 years 3 months and 19 days.