Ivinson v Parsons - [2011] NTSC 19

Ivinson v Parsons [2011] NTSC 19

PARTIES: IVINSON, Kevin Robert

PARSONS, Matthew Alan

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 45 or 2010 (21009049)

DELIVERED: 4 March 2011

HEARING DATES: 17 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: BLOKLAND J

APPEAL FROM: Ms Morris SM

CATCHWORDS:

TRAFFIC OFFENCES – Drive with a medium range blood alcohol content -Appeal against sentence – what is an early plea – sufficient weight to be given to plea – principles concerning reduction in sentence on a plea of guilty – value of plea – Magistrate not in error – sentencing discretion not miscarried – Appeal Dismissed.

Traffic Act (NT) ss 22(1),

Bryce Jabaltjari Spencerv The Queen [2005] NTCCA 3; Cameron v The Queen (2001-2002) 209 CLR 339; DF v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 13;; Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39; R v Oinonen [1999] NSW CCA 310; Wright v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 5; referred.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: Ms Roussos
Respondent: Ms Taylor

Solicitors:
Appellant: Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:   BLO 1102
Number of pages:   17

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Ivinson v Parsons [2010] NTSC 19
No. JA 45 of 2010 (21009049)

BETWEEN:

KEVIN ROBERT IVINSON
Appellant

AND:

MATTHEW ALAN PARSONS
Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 4 March 2011)

Introduction
This appeal raises the issue of how a plea of guilty should be characterized when it is entered on the day of a scheduled contested hearing in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. More particularly, the circumstances concern charges that have been resolved between the parties at a prior time. The point arose in the context of multiple traffic charges being reduced to one count of drive with a Medium Range Blood Alcohol level (.134%). The Appellant pleaded guilty to that one remaining count after all other counts were withdrawn. He was convicted and fined $800. He was also disqualified from driving for 12 months. A further 12 month alcohol ignition lock license was imposed and a victims’ levy of $40 was ordered. The disqualification period and alcohol ignition lock license are mandated orders; a twelve month order on each was the minimum available to the learned Magistrate.
The Appellant alleges error occurred because, he argues, the learned Magistrate characterized his guilty plea as a “late plea” and “insufficient weight” was given to his plea of guilty. In effect it is the level of the fine the Appellant appeals against. All other sentencing orders reflect the statutory minimum. The maximum fine available at the time was $2660.
The date of the offending was 16 March 2010. The plea was entered on 1 September 2010. My reading of the transcript does not reveal the learned Magistrate actually made a finding this was a “late plea”. On the other hand it…

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 Ivinson v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Ivinson v Parsons [2011] NTSC 19
Case: [2011] NTSC 19
Decision Date: 4 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ivinson v Parsons, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for driving with a medium range blood alcohol content. The central issue in the appeal was whether the learned Magistrate correctly characterized the appellant's plea of guilty and adequately considered its value in mitigating the sentence. The appellant argued that his plea should have been considered an "early plea" and that insufficient weight was given to his plea of guilty, which affected the level of the fine imposed. The court examined the chronology of events and the conduct of the appellant, including his non-appearances and the conditional nature of his plea offer. It was found that the learned Magistrate was entitled to assess the value of the plea based on the appellant's overall conduct and the circumstances surrounding the plea. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction was affirmed.

Orders