Legal Research
Cases
Joran v The King

Joran v The King

Case [2024] NTCCA 1 24 January 2024

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Joran v The King [2024] NTCCA 1
PARTIES:JORAN, Jason

v
THE KING

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 4 of 2023 (SCC 22111020 & 22138735)
DELIVERED:  24 January 2024

HEARING DATE: 28 June 2023
JUDGMENT OF: Kelly ACJ, Barr J & Hiley AJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in treatment of the harshness of pre-sentence custody – Whether sentencing judge erred in applying the principle of totality – Whether sentencing judge erred in treatment of the applicant’s childhood deprivation and complex PTSD – Held that applicant failed to establish error in the sentencing exercise – No less severe sentence to that imposed by the sentencing judge was warranted – Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Violent offending against family members – Sentences for four offences made fully cumulative – Whether sentencing judge erred in applying the principle of totality – Sentencing judge confirmed full cumulation after considering whether adjustment was necessary – Decision to accumulate discretionary – Applicant failed to establish that discretion miscarried – Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge erred in treatment of the applicant’s childhood deprivation and complex PTSD – Held that Bugmy principles were taken into account – Moral culpability was still high due to the nature of the offending – No error in the sentencing discretion
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 188, s 310, s 390, s 411
Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT), s 13, s 121
Barr v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 2, Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571, Carroll v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 6; 29 NTLR 106, Clinch v The Queen (1994) 72 A Crim R 301, Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; 290 A Crim R 110, GS v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 266, McDonald v R (1992) 85 NTR 1, Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59, Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 14, Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295, R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159, Rostron v The Queen (1991) 1 NTLR 191, The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270, Thomas v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 4; 40 NTLR 70, referred to.
Clayton Ruby, Sentencing (Butterworths, 3^rd Edition, 1987)
D A Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (Heinemann, 2^nd Edition, 1979)

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Murphy, J Bourke
Respondent:  L Babb KC, L Auld
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  37

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA

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 Joran v The King

Details

AGLC: Joran v The King [2024] NTCCA 1
Case: [2024] NTCCA 1
Decision Date: 24 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the conviction of Joran for an offence, with the appellant, Joran, appealing against the decision of the trial court. The respondent was the Crown.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically evidence of prior convictions, during the trial. The appellant argued that this evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should not have been placed before the jury.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior convictions, particularly under the relevant evidence legislation. The judges analysed whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the prior convictions. The Court ultimately found that the admission of the evidence was not an error that would warrant setting aside the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.

Orders