IT v Knight

Case [2020] ACTSC 101

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

IT v Knight

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 101

Hearing Date:

17 July, 25 October 2019

DecisionDate:

28 April 2020

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [64]

Catchwords:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether conviction should have been entered – whether further evidence should be admitted in an appeal by rehearing – resentence upon admitting further evidence without a finding of error

Legislation Cited:

Agents Act 2003 (ACT)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 17

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 324

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 137, 138, 139, 140, 144

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 207, 208, 214

Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32

Cases Cited:

2 Elizabeth Bay Road Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan No 73943 [2014] NSWCA 409; 88 NSWLR 488

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27

Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; 203 CLR 172

Atmore v Milner [2016] ACTSC 260

Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barron v Laverty [2019] ACTSC 198

Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420

Campbell v Fortey (1987) 85 FLR 462

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club ltd [1997] HCA 2; 187 CLR 384

Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Dataflex Pty Ltd and ACAT [2011] ACTCA 14; 5 ACTLR 271

Edwards v Marinus [2010] ACTSC 57

Fallon v Baker [2018] ACTSC 319

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Limited [2012] HCA 55; 250 CLR 503

Foulkes v Coles [2017] ACTSC 178

Greenwood v Beale [2018] ACTSC 46

Grooms v Toohey [2012] ACTSC 28; 7 ACTLR 1

House of Pearce Pty Ltd v Bankstown City Council [2000] NSWSCA 44; 48 NSWLR 498

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Islam v Wasley [2014] ACTSC 127

Khoury v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 118; 209 A Crim R 509

Kuzmanovski v NSW Lotteries Corporation [2010] FCA 876; 270 ALR 65

Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; 242 CLR 573

R v Latimore & Ors (1975) 52 Cr App R 53

Lukatela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99; 164 ACTR 24

Lumby v Cooper [2008] ACTSC 53

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19; 257 CLR 468

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 264 CLR 541

Mearns v Neil [2016] ACTSC 36

Moroney v Wojcicka [2003] ACTCA 15; 143 A Crim R 1

O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47

Owen v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 54

Parkinson v Alexander [2016] ACTSCFC 1; 11 ACTLR 190

Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79

Preston v Carnall [2015] ACTSC 325; 300 FLR 302

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR…

Continue reading IT v Knight

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
IT v Knight [2020] ACTSC 101
Case
[2020] ACTSC 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Knight, against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. Knight was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, contrary to section 352 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a conviction should have been entered and if further evidence should be admitted in the appeal by rehearing. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the trial judge erred by failing to consider mitigating factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant submitted that the sentence was within the appropriate range and the trial judge had properly considered the mitigating factors.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and noted that the trial judge had considered all relevant mitigating factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in sentencing. The court also found that the conviction should have been entered for the offence of assault, rather than assault occasioning bodily harm. The court observed that the evidence demonstrated that the police officer sustained injuries, but not grievous bodily harm. Regarding the admission of further evidence, the court held that it was not appropriate to admit further evidence in the appeal by rehearing, as the evidence was not relevant to the sentence or the conviction. However, the court exercised its discretion to admit the evidence and resentenced the respondent upon the basis of the additional evidence without making a finding of error.

The court ordered that the conviction for assault be recorded, and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 10 months with a non-parole period of 6 months and 2 weeks be set aside. The court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for a period of 8 months with a non-parole period of 4 months. The court also ordered that the respondent be released on parole eligibility on 20 August 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [64]

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.