Langlands v Burnell

Case [2018] ACTSC 272

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Langlands v Burnell

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 272

Hearing Date(s):

5 February 2015

DecisionDate:

5 October 2018

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

1.    The appeal will be dismissed.

2.    The parties will be heard about:

(a)  costs; and

(b)  whether any further orders are required in relation to the sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court.

Catchwords:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Criminal law – Interference with Discretion of Court Below – appeal against sentence imposed in Magistrates Court – correct pleading of appeal grounds – whether specific error established – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – whether manifest inadequacy appeal useful in establishing principle – appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 17 and 33

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 219B(1)(f)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Cao v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 109
Ghoubriel v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 66
Gray-Herewini v Lee [2013] WASC 200
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359
R vLoveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; 243 A Crim R 31
R v OIbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Director of Public Prosecutions v Russell [2014] VSCA 308; 44 VR 471
The Queen v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17
WongvThe Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Parties:

Heath Langlands (Appellant)

Ben Burnell (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J White SC (Appellant)

Mr K Archer (Respondent)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions  (Appellant)

Kamy Saeedi Law (Respondent)

File Number(s):

SCA 87 of 2014

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Dingwall

Date of Decision:         30 September 2014

Case Title:  R v Burnell

Court File Number(s):   CC14/3254

Introduction

  1. The Crown has appealed against orders made after Ben Burnell was dealt with in the Magistrates Court for an offence of common assault. The appeal is a review appeal brought under s 219B(1)(f) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

  1. The notice of appeal says that the appeal is against both the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the Magistrate. Appealing against the recording of a conviction is an odd approach for the Crown, and this may explain why the only orders sought on appeal relate to the other orders made by the Magistrate.

The assault

  1. In the early morning of 19 July 2013, Mr Burnell and a friend were walking along Mort Street in Civic. The victim, Nicholas Hall, was also walking along Mort Street. There was no suggestion that Mr Burnell was affected by alcohol or any other drug (although the Forensic Mental Health Report (FMHR) ordered by the Magistrate notes Mr Burnell’s advice that…

Continue reading Langlands v Burnell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Langlands v Burnell [2018] ACTSC 272
Case
[2018] ACTSC 272
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Langlands was the appellant, appealing against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The nature of the dispute was the sentence that had been imposed by the Magistrates Court, which the appellant considered to be manifestly inadequate. The court hearing the appeal was the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had correctly pleaded the grounds for the appeal, whether a specific error had been established, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court also considered whether an appeal on the ground of manifest inadequacy was useful in establishing principle. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and that the Magistrates Court had erred in not imposing a custodial sentence.

The court found that the appellant had not correctly pleaded the grounds for the appeal, as the grounds were not specific enough. The court also found that there was no established specific error, and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court held that an appeal on the ground of manifest inadequacy was not useful in establishing principle, as it was not necessary to do so in every case. The appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the parties be heard about costs and whether any further orders were required in relation to the sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal will be dismissed.

2. The parties will be heard about:

(a) costs; and

(b) whether any further orders are required in relation to the sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court.

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.