Isaac v Pryce - [2001] NTSC 35

Isaac v Pryce & Ors [2001] NTSC 35
PARTIES:SAMUEL ISAAC

v
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE and
KEVIN DAVID WINZAR and
ROBERT BRUE HOSKING and
CRAIG VICTOR RYAN

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICITON exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA40 of 2001 (20011383)
JA41 of 2001 (20020768)
JA42 of 2001 (20015778)
JA43 of 2001 (20100982)

DELIVERED:  18 May 2001
HEARING DATES:  2, 8 and 10 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal from Court of Summary Jurisdiction – appeal on grounds that sentence manifestly excessive – failure to antedate sentence – aspect of rehabilitation – minor criminal record – appellant’s personal disposition – discount for plea of guilty – objective circumstances of offence – principle of totality – sentence backdated – other grounds of appeal dismissed
Juvenile Justice Act 1983 (NT), s 90
Nottle v Trenerry (1993) 113 FLR 242, adopted
R v Raggett (1990) 50 A Crim R 41; Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509; M v Waldron (1988) 90 FLR 355; R v Smith (1988) 33 A Crim R 95; R vGray [1977] VR 225; Kelly v The Queen [2000] NTCCA 3 (30 June 2000); Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59, referred to
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386, applied

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:D Conidi
Respondent:  G McMaster
Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  tho200113
Number of pages:  26

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Isaac v Pryce & Ors [2001] NTSC 35
Nos.JA40/2001, JA41/2001, JA42/2001, JA43/2001

BETWEEN:
SAMUEL ISAAC

Appellant
AND:
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE and
KEVIN DAVID WINZAR and
ROBERT BRUCE HOSKING and
CRAIG VICTOR RYAN

Respondents

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 May 2001)

This is an appeal against sentence imposed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 16 March 2001.

On that date the learned stipendiary magistrate sentenced the appellant to a total period of 19 months imprisonment. This sentence was suspended after he had served six months on condition he be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months with a condition he be under the supervision of a probation officer and on condition that he obey the probation officer’s directions with respect to counselling and or treatment for substance abuse. The sentence was backdated to 19 January 2001.
The sentence was imposed in respect of a number of offences to which the appellant had entered a plea of guilty. The details of these are as follows:
“Case No.   Offn    Offence Description       Sentence
200113831        Enter a dwelling with       1 Month(s) commencing on 19 intent – crime  January 2001
200157781        Enter a building with       12 Month(s) cumulative upon intent – crime  the sentence imposed in case
20011383
200157782        Stealing
200207681        Enter a dwelling with       4 Month(s) cumulative upon intent – crime  the sentence imposed…

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 Isaac v Pryce

Details

AGLC: Isaac v Pryce [2001] NTSC 35
Case: [2001] NTSC 35
Decision Date: 18 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Isaac v Pryce was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Isaac, appealed against his conviction and sentence, which arose from multiple offences. The court considered several grounds of appeal, including the magistrate's handling of the appellant's cooperation with police and the perceived excessiveness of the sentence. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the magistrate correctly applied the principle of totality when determining the sentence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing magistrate erred in his assessment of the appellant's cooperation and admissions, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if the principle of totality was correctly applied. The court was required to determine if the sentencing magistrate's decisions were based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law.

The court found that the sentencing magistrate had indeed considered the appellant's cooperation with police and admissions, and these factors were appropriately weighed in the sentencing decision. The court also determined that the sentence, though not ideal in its execution, did not manifest an error in principle or in the assessment of evidence. The court held that the aggregate sentence of 19 months was not excessive, nor was the part of the sentence that was ordered to be served. The principle of totality was also correctly applied, as evidenced by the magistrate's reference to the total sentence being fair given the nature and manner of the offences.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the original conviction and sentence. No further orders were made as the appeal was found to be without merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

I do not consider this ground of appeal has been substantiated.Ground 10: That the learned sentencing magistrate had insufficient regard to the Appellant’s co-operation with the police.Ground 11: That the learned sentencing magistrate had insufficient regard to the Appellant’s full admissions in the record of interview.” The Crown concedes that admissions were made with respect to the offences on files number 20011383 and 20015778. With respect to the offences on file 20100982, the appellant declined to participate in a record of interview. With respect to offences on file 20020768 the record of interview was terminated as the caution could not be understood. Again I consider that the sentence itself does not reflect a failure to take these matters into account and accord appropriate weight to the appellant’s cooperation with police. Having dealt with the more specific grounds of appeal, I now turn to consider the two grounds of appeal concerning the sentence being manifestly excessive.Ground 1: That the aggregate head sentence of 19 months imprisonment imposed by the learned sentencing magistrate for offences contained in Files No. 20011383, 20015778, 20020768 and 20100982 was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.Ground 2: That the part of the sentence that was ordered to be served, namely six months imprisonment, imposed by the learned sentencing magistrate or offences contained in Files No. 20011383, 20015778, 20020768 and 20100982 was manifestly excessive. I apply the following principle as stated by the Federal Court, Brennan, Deane and Gallop JJ in R v Tait (supra) at 388 (paragraph 2):“An appellate court does not interfere with the sentence imposed merely because it is of the view that that sentence is insufficient or excessive. It interferes only if it be shown that the sentencing judge was in error in acting on a wrong principle or in misunderstanding or in wrongly assessing some salient feature of the evidence. The error may appear in what the sentencing judge said in the proceedings, or the sentence itself may be so excessive or inadequate as to manifest such error (see generally, Skinner v The King; R v Withers; Whittaker v The King; Griffiths v The Queen.” Apart from the failure to antedate the sentence in full, I am not persuaded the learned stipendiary magistrate acted on a wrong principle or in misunderstanding or in wrongly assessing some salient feature of the evidence. Neither do I consider the sentence itself is so excessive as to manifest error. Accordingly, this ground of appeal does not succeed.Ground 4: That the learned sentencing magistrate failed to apply correctly the principle of totality. The learned stipendiary magistrate did make reference to the principle of totality when he stated in the course of his reasons for sentence (t/p 5):“The total sentence is a period of 19 months. With respect to the 19 months’ imprisonment, I’ve assessed the totality of that sentence and it seems to me fair, looking at the totality of what the defendant did and the manner in which it was done.”