Joseph Turrise v Loryn Hunter

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

JOSEPH TURRISE v LORYN HUNTER
[2008] ACTSC 128 (27 November 2008)

APPEAL – appeal from decision of the Magistrates Court of the ACT – appeal against sentence – appellant on parole at time of committing the offence – breach of core conditions of parole by committing an offence – cancellation of parole order – time spent in custody – service of unexpired sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – sentencing discretion of Magistrate – maximum penalty for offence – “worst category of case” principle – sentences imposed for like offences – discount for plea of guilty where negotiations lead to significant editing of the statement of facts

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24(1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 66, s 71, s 72, s 74, s 75
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 139
Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT), s 92A

Explanatory Memorandum to the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), 30 June 2005

R v Anthony Mark Ward [2007] ACTSC (12 September 2007)
Anthony Mark Ward v The Queen [2008] ACTCA 5 (26 February 2008)

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 36 of 2008

Judge:              Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               27 November 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCA 36 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JOSEPH TURRISE

Appellant

AND:LORYN HUNTER

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  27 November 2008
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be upheld.

  1. The recording of the convictions be confirmed, but the sentences be otherwise set aside.

  1. In lieu thereof, the appellant be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment upon the first charge and six months imprisonment on the second charge cumulative as to three months only. 

  1. The parole order be cancelled as from 14 March 2008 and the appellant be committed to prison for one year 11 months from that date.  That sentence is to expire on 12 February 2009.  To take account of time spent in custody for these offences, the sentence so imposed is to be concurrent as to nine months with the existing sentence.  The head sentence is to expire on 14 February 2010.  The non-parole period be re-set to expire on 14 May 2009

  1. This is an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant by Magistrate Doogan on 15 April 2008.

  1. On that date, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.

  1. On the first matter, her Honour, upon conviction for both matters, sentenced the appellant to two years imprisonment.  On the second matter she sentenced the appellant to six months imprisonment, cumulative upon the first sentence.  The appellant was then subject to a parole order, revoked by the convictions with the unexpired sentence due to expire, taking account of time in custody, on 9 November 2011.  The new sentence was to commence on 10 December 2007 with a non-parole period of 24 months.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Joseph Turrise v Loryn Hunter and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] ACTSC 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Turrise appealed against the decision of the Magistrates Court of the ACT, challenging the sentence imposed for his breach of parole and the commission of new offences while on parole. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and the appropriate punishment for the breach of parole and the new criminal acts. The Court had to decide whether the sentence was excessive, whether the principle of the "worst category of case" was correctly applied, and if the discount for the plea of guilty was appropriately considered.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate's decision to impose a lengthy sentence was influenced by the appellant's history of reoffending and his failure to abide by the conditions of his parole. The Court recognised the principle of the "worst category of case" but determined that it was not the most fitting category for Turrise's situation. The Court also noted that the Magistrate did not sufficiently consider the discount for the plea of guilty, which should have been a significant factor in determining the sentence. As a result, the Court deemed the sentence to be excessive.

The appeal was upheld, and the recording of the convictions was confirmed, but the sentences were set aside. In place of the original sentences, the Court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the first charge and six months imprisonment for the second charge, cumulative as to three months only. The parole order was cancelled as from 14 March 2008, and the appellant was committed to prison for one year 11 months from that date, with the sentence to expire on 12 February 2009. To account for time spent in custody, the sentence imposed was to be concurrent as to nine months with the existing sentence. The head sentence was to expire on 14 February 2010, and the non-parole period was to expire on 14 May 2009.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal be upheld.

2.The recording of the convictions be confirmed, but the sentences be otherwise set aside.

3. In lieu thereof, the appellant be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment upon the first charge and six months imprisonment on the second charge cumulative as to three months only.

4. The parole order be cancelled as from 14 March 2008 and the appellant be committed to prison for one year 11 months from that date. That sentence is to expire on 12 February 2009. To take account of time spent in custody for these offences, the sentence so imposed is to be concurrent as to nine months with the existing sentence. The head sentence is to expire on 14 February 2010. The non-parole period be re-set to expire on 14 May 2009

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.