SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Inglis v Adamson | |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 4 | |
Hearing Date: | 26 April 2023 | |
Decision Date: | 19 January 2024 | |
Before: | Baker J | |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. | |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction –– whether finding of guilt open to Magistrate – whether sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty by way of joint commission – operation of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – when agreement commenced – appeal dismissed. CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Appeal against sentence – where three co-offenders received the same sentence – principles of parity – individual roles in offending – whether different sentences warranted – appeal dismissed. | |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Crimes (Serious Organised Crime) Amendment Act 2010 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45A Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.2A Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 207, 208, 214 | |
Cases Cited: | Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49 Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403 Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; 203 CLR 172 Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 53 DPP v Clissold [2023] ACTSC 250 Franze v The Queen [2014] VSCA 352; 46 VR 856 Handlen v the Queen [2011] HCA 51; 245 CLR 282 Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129 Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99; 164 ACTR 24 McAuliffe v The Queen [1995] HCA 37; 183 CLR 108 R v Holliday [2017] HCA 35; 260 CLR 650 R v Pui Man Liu and Sin Chun Wong (2003, unreported, NSWCCA) R v Shearer [2018] ACTSC 91; 332 FLR 383 | |
Texts Cited: | Revised Explanatory Statement to the Crimes (Serious Organised Crime) Amendment Bill 2010 (ACT) Stephen Odgers, Principles of Federal Criminal Law (Thompson Reuters, 2019) | |
Parties: | Bradley Thomas Inglis ( Appellant) James Christian Adamson (Respondent) | |
Representation: | Counsel T Sharman ( Appellant) E Bayliss ( Respondent) | |
| Solicitors T Sharman ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions | ||
File Number: | SCA 33 of 2022 | |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: | ACT Magistrates Court |
| Before: | Magistrate Lawton | |
| Date of Decision: | 3 August 2022 | |
| Case Title: | Adamson v Inglis | |
| Court File Numbers: | CAN 4378 of 2021 CAN 9234 of 2021 | |
BAKER J:
Introduction
1․On 21 June 2022, the appellant, Bradley Inglis, was found guilty by Magistrate Lawton (the Magistrate) of a single count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon Mr Wenbo Du by joint commission, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 9234/2021). The appellant also pleaded guilty to a further count of common assault on a different victim (Mr Ziqi Zhang), arising out of the same incident (CAN…
Continue reading Inglis v Adamson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Inglis v Adamson [2024] ACTSC 4
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence presented and the legal principles surrounding joint commission offences. It found that the Magistrate was entitled to conclude that Inglis was a party to the offence based on the evidence, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt by way of joint commission. The court also considered the appropriate sentence in light of the principles of parity and the individual roles of the co-offenders, concluding that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant variation. The operation of section 45A of the Criminal Code was also found to be correctly applied in this case.
Given the findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the Magistrate's determination or sentencing. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was therefore unsuccessful.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
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.