Lang v Police - [2019] SASC 97

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
LANG v POLICE
[2019] SASC 97
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
7 June 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Appeal against sentence.
Following a trial in the Magistrates Court the appellant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, contravening a term of an intervention order and property damage. On 21 March 2019 the Magistrate imposed convictions on all counts and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for six months. The appellant committed the aggravated offences by assaulting his then domestic partner and a police officer who was acting in the course of his duty.
The appellant appealed to this Court against his convictions and sentence, though his appeal against his convictions was subsequently abandoned. As to his sentence, the appellant appealed on two inter-related grounds:
1. that the Magistrate failed to have regard to the appellant’s lack of antecedents, age, community work, good character and the interests of justice; and
2. the sentence of six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
Held, allowing the appeal in part, the appellant is to serve 16 weeks of his six-month sentence of imprisonment in prison with the remainder of the sentence being suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond to be of good behaviour.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5AA(1), 20(3), 85(3); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 31(2); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42(1); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 96(4); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 286(1), referred to.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied.
R v Saunders [2017] SASCFC 86, discussed.
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; Clark v Trenerry (1996) 125 FLR 260; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; Kumantjara v Harris (1992) 109 FLR 400; R v Lutze (2014) 121 SASR 144; R v Manolakis [2008] SASC 129; R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98, considered.

LANG v POLICE
[2019] SASC 97
Magistrates Appeal
Hinton J:
Introduction

The appellant, Richard Walter Lang, was found guilty by a Magistrate after a trial of the following offences:
i.aggravated assault against a domestic partner, contrary to s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA) (count 1);
ii.contravening a term of an intervention order, contrary to s 31(2) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) (count 2);
iii.aggravated assault against a police officer, contrary to s 20(3) CLCA (count 3); and
iv. property damage, contrary to s 85(3) CLCA (count 4).
In sentencing the appellant the Magistrate imposed convictions on all counts and, pursuant to s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), imposed one penalty, namely, imprisonment for a period…

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 Lang v Police

Details

AGLC: Lang v Police [2019] SASC 97
Case: [2019] SASC 97
Decision Date: 7 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lang, appealed against his conviction and sentence for assault causing actual bodily harm and resisting arrest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Lang's primary contention on appeal was that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was excessive and disproportionate. The appeal centred on the legal principles governing the imposition of custodial sentences and the extent to which the court should interfere with such sentences on appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, warranting appellate interference. The appeal hinged on whether the Magistrates Court had erred in its assessment of the appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court needed to consider whether there was a substantial and compelling reason to set aside the sentence and impose a different one.

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrates Court had not erred in its sentencing. The court found that the sentence was well within the range of appropriate custodial sentences for the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing and highlighted that appellate courts should only intervene in cases where there is a substantial and compelling reason to do so. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders