SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Krutsky v McCormick |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 3 |
Hearing Date: | 18 July 2023 |
Decision Date: | 18 July 2023 |
Reasons Date: | 18 January 2024 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Offender appeal on sentence – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – sentence concerning offences of act endangering life and damaging property – high degree of concurrency and orthodox approach to totality – lenient sentence and nonparole period – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 27 |
Cases Cited: | Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 |
Parties: | Rebecca Katherine Krutsky ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel J Sabharwal ( Appellant) L Crocker ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Fraser Criminal Law ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 16 of 2023 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 22 February 2023 Case Title: McCormick v Krutsky Charge Numbers: CC2022/8955, CC2022/8957, CC2022/8953 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:
Introduction
1․On 18 July 2023, I heard an appeal of a sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court.
On that day, I ordered that the appeal be dismissed. Reasons were reserved. Those reasons now follow.2․This appeal concerns a sentence imposed by Magistrate Theakston (the Magistrate).
Ms Krutsky, the appellant, was sentenced in respect of the following offences:(a)For two offences of act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC2022/8955, CC2022/8957), to 18 months’ imprisonment for each offence to be served concurrently, commencing on 8 September 2022 and concluding on 7 March 2024; and
(b)For the offence of damaging property contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002
Continue reading Krutsky v McCormick
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Krutsky v McCormick [2024] ACTSC 3
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive by considering the principles of sentencing, particularly the high degree of concurrency in the offences and the orthodox approach to the totality principle. The appellant argued that the sentence was too severe, but the court found that the sentence was lenient, taking into account the facts of the case and the applicable sentencing guidelines. The court also noted the nonparole period, which was relatively short, and found it to be commensurate with the severity of the crimes committed.
The appeal was dismissed by the court, which held that the Magistrates' Court had exercised its discretion correctly in imposing the sentence. The appellate court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Magistrates' Court had appropriately balanced the various factors relevant to sentencing in this case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stood.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
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.