Justin Guy Ring v Paul Gerard Beath - [2009] ACTSC 19

JUSTIN GUY RING v PAUL GERARD BEATH [2009] ACTSC 19 (16 March 2009)

APPEAL – appeal from decision of the Magistrates Court of the ACT – reasons for allowing appeal.
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from decision of the Magistrates Court of the ACT – principles for determining appeals – difficulty of arguing manifest excess and manifest inadequacy – relevant circumstances in considering manifest excess.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – relevant considerations – criminal history of offender – multiple breaches of provisions of Road Transport legislation – whether different offence provisions with identical penalties can create offences of different seriousness.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – relevant considerations – offender with no claim to leniency not automatically liable to high penalty irrespective of nature and circumstances of particular offence.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – relevant considerations – offender yet to serve a period of full-time custody – prison term may be more onerous than for a person who has previously spent time in custody – whether repeat offender can be assumed to make informed choice to risk prison term, so as to require longer term for deterrent purposes.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing principles – relevant considerations – subjective features of offender – physical or mental health problems unrelated to commission of offence may still be relevant to penalty.

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32
Criminal Code (WA), ss 324D, 342F
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 54, 50
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), par 214(3)(b)

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
DPP (Vic) v Raddino (2002) 128 A Crim R 437
Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1987) 164 CLR 465
Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339
McDonald v The Queen (1994) 48 FCR 555

Moutrage v Haines [2008] ACTSC 36 (8 May 2008)

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 4 of 2008

Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 March 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCA 4 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JUSTIN GUY RING

Appellant

AND:PAUL GERARD BEATH
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  16 March 2009
Place:  Canberra

Introduction

On 24 April 2008 I heard an appeal by Justin Guy Ring from a sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court in relation to an offence of driving while disqualified contrary to par 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (the Road Transport Act). At the end of the hearing I upheld the appeal and re-sentenced Mr Ring to a term of 5 months imprisonment, backdated to 18 December 2007 to reflect time served, and immediately suspended subject to a 12 month good behaviour order. I indicated that I would provide written reasons for upholding the appeal. These are my reasons.

Background

The circumstances of the offences

About 4:30 am on…

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 Justin Guy Ring v Paul Gerard Beath

Details

AGLC: Justin Guy Ring v Paul Gerard Beath [2009] ACTSC 19
Case: [2009] ACTSC 19
Decision Date: 16 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the respondent, Justin Guy Ring, sought to challenge the sentence imposed upon him by the Magistrates Court of the ACT. The nature of the dispute involved the appropriateness and severity of the sentence, which the respondent deemed to be excessive. The appeal was heard and determined by the Court, which considered the arguments presented by both parties.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was a manifest excess of jurisdiction. It was necessary to consider the principles governing such appeals, particularly the difficulty in arguing manifest excess and manifest inadequacy. The court also had to weigh various sentencing principles, including the criminal history of the offender, the multiple breaches of Road Transport legislation, and the potential differences in the seriousness of offences with identical penalties. Additionally, the court considered whether the respondent, having no claim to leniency, was automatically liable to a high penalty irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the particular offence. The court also deliberated on whether a repeat offender, who had yet to serve a period of full-time custody, could be assumed to make an informed choice to risk a prison term, thereby requiring a longer term for deterrent purposes. Finally, the court examined whether the subjective features of the offender, such as physical or mental health problems unrelated to the commission of the offence, were relevant to the penalty.

In its reasoning, the Court found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was indeed a manifest excess of jurisdiction. The court held that the principles for determining appeals required a careful consideration of the relevant circumstances, which in this case, pointed to an excessive penalty. The court also noted that the offender’s criminal history and multiple breaches of Road Transport legislation warranted a certain degree of deterrence but did not automatically justify a high penalty. Furthermore, the court found that the respondent’s subjective features, such as his health problems, were relevant to the penalty. The court concluded that the original sentence was excessive and re-sentenced the respondent to a term of 5 months imprisonment, backdated to reflect time served, and immediately suspended subject to a 12 month good behaviour order.

The Court’s final orders were that the appeal was upheld, and the respondent was re-sentenced to a term of 5 months imprisonment, backdated to 18 December 2007 to reflect time served, and immediately suspended subject to a 12 month good behaviour order. These orders were made on 24 April 2008, and the written reasons for judgment were provided on the same date.

Orders

Orders of the court

(Written reasons for judgment on 24 April 2008 )

The Court upheld the appeal and re-sentenced Mr Ring to a term of 5 months imprisonment, backdated to 18 December 2007 to reflect time served, and immediately suspended subject to a 12 month good behaviour order.

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.