Jamie Griggs v The Queen

[2006] ACTCA 24

JAMIE GRIGGS v THE QUEEN [2006] ACTCA 24 (8 November 2006)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 30 - 2006
No. SCC 124 of 2006
No. SCC 277 of 2005

Judges:         Crispin P, Gray & Moore JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            8 November 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30 - 2006
  )          No. SCC 124 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 277 of 2005
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMIE GRIGGS

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray & Moore JJ
Date:  8 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30 - 2006
  )          No. SCC 124 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 277 of 2005
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMIE GRIGGS

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray & Moore JJ
Date:  8 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRISPIN P:

1. This is an appeal against the perceived severity of sentences imposed for two counts of common assault and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 

1. In relation to each of the two counts of common assault, the offender was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment with each of the sentences be served concurrently and each sentence to commence from 28 April 2006.  Consequently those sentences had already expired by the time they were retrospectively announced. 

1. The only live issue, therefore, is the perceived severity of the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, that being a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment to commence from 28 July 2006 but subject to an order that it be suspended with effect from the 27 April 2007 upon certain conditions.

1. It is, I think, unnecessary to describe in detail the circumstances in which that offence occurred, but I should indicate that it involved kicking a pregnant woman who was his domestic partner.  The offence was undoubtedly serious and, as his Honour observed, the appellant had an extensive criminal history that included a number of other offences of violence. 

1. Ms Saunders, who appeared on his behalf, submitted however that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that his Honour had fallen into appealable error by failing to consider at all the possible alternatives, including a sentence served by periodic detention. 

1. Whilst I have carefully considered Ms Saunders submissions, it seems to me that the suggested error has not been established.  As I read the judgment, what his Honour did was to form the view that, in all of the circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment, at least part of which would have to be served on a full time basis, was the only sentence that would adequately reflect the gravity of the offence in question. 

1. Ms Saunders also addressed the Court in relation to particular factors that she submitted demonstrated that the sentence was excessive.  She pointed to the fact that his partner had apparently forgiven him and wanted him back, to the fact that she was pregnant and expecting a child in December and, in particular, to the fact that she had experienced some health problems which made it desirable for somebody to be with her during the period leading up to the birth and the birth itself.  However, there is nothing in his Honour’s judgment to suggest that he had overlooked those matters.

1. Nor, so far as I can see, is there any ground for concluding that the sentence imposed was outside the range of discretion reasonably available to his Honour in the circumstances. 

1. I have been unable to find any appealable error in his Honour’s judgment and would dismiss the appeal.

10.  The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour President Crispin.

Associate:

Date:     1 December 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30 - 2006
  )          No. SCC 277 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 124 of 2006

)          

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMIE GRIGGS

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray & Moore JJ
Date:  8 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY J:

11.  I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by the President.

I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered eleven (11) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Gray.

Associate:

Date:     1 December 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30 - 2006

)          No. SCC 124 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SCC 277 of 2005
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMIE GRIGGS

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray & Moore JJ
Date:  8 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J:

1. I also agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by the President.

   I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered twelve (12) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Moore.

   Associate:

   Date:     1 December 2006

Counsel for the Appellant:  Ms J Saunders
Solicitor for the Appellant:  Darryl Perkins Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr R Refshauge SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing:  8 November 2006
Date of judgment:  8 November 2006