SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
Laipato v The Queen
Citation:
[2020] ACTCA 35
Hearing Date:
18 May 2020
DecisionDate:
7 July 2020
Before:
Murrell CJ, Robinson and Berman AJJ
Decision:
Conviction appeal dismissed. Sentence appeal upheld and appellant resentenced: see [197]–[199].
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Trial – Inconsistent verdicts – Unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory verdicts – “Bad character evidence” – Where defence did not object to evidence at trial
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Sentence – Error in factual findings – Objective seriousness – Manifest excess – Resentence
[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 Laipato v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35
Case
[2020] ACTCA 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Laipato appealed against his conviction and sentence for a number of offences. The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Robinson and Berman AJJ in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The grounds of appeal included that the verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that there was an issue with "bad character evidence" which was not objected to at trial. The appeal also concerned the sentence imposed, alleging error in factual findings regarding objective seriousness and manifest excess.
The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were so unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory as to warrant intervention. It also had to consider whether the admission of "bad character evidence," despite the defence's failure to object at trial, rendered the verdicts unsafe. Furthermore, the court was tasked with assessing whether the sentencing judge made errors in factual findings concerning the objective seriousness of the offences, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence.
The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdicts were not unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory. The failure to object to the "bad character evidence" at trial was considered in the context of the overall trial. However, the appeal against sentence was upheld. The court found that there were errors in the factual findings regarding the objective seriousness of the offences, which resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, the appellant was resentenced.
Orders
Orders of the court
Conviction appeal dismissed. Sentence appeal upheld and appellant resentenced: see [197]–[199].