Lewis v Storey

Case [2019] ACTSC 74

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Lewis v Storey

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 74

Hearing Date:

19 October 2018

DecisionDate:

22 March 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [54]-[56].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether the Magistrate erred in describing the offence as “attempted murder” – where the Magistrate incorrectly calculated discounts for the pleas of guilty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 26, 27, 28, 381

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 144

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 207, 208, 214, 218

Cases Cited:

CX v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 3

Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48
Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Linggo v R [2017] NSWCCA 67
McLeod v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 59
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R vToumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9

Texts Cited:

Explanatory Statement, Crimes (Domestic and Family Violence) Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (ACT)

Parties:

Mitchell Lewis (Appellant)

Miranda Storey (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr J Lawton (Appellant)

Ms S Naidu (Respondent)

Solicitors

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 36 of 2018

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Boss

Date of Decision:         10 July 2018

Case Title:  Storey v Lewis

Court File Number:       CC18/7669

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. Mitchell Lewis (the appellant) appeals from sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court on 10 July 2018 by Magistrate Boss.

  1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for five offences. Those offences were as follows:

Charge Offence Date Offence Maximum Penalty of Imprisonment Sentence
CC18/6048 11 March 2018 Common assault pursuant to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 2 years imprisonment

6 months of imprisonment (reduced from 7 months)
 – concurrent with CC18/7669
CC18/3850 12 March 2018 Possess offensive weapon with intent pursuant to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 1 year of imprisonment

3 months of imprisonment (reduced from 4 months)
– concurrent with CC18/7669
CC18/6053 12 March 2018 Common assault pursuant to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 2 years of imprisonment

6 months of imprisonment (reduced from 7 months) - concurrent with CC18/7669
CC18/6059 12 March 2018 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm pursuant to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 5 years of imprisonment

11 months of imprisonment (reduced from 13 months) – concurrent with CC18/7669
CC18/7669 12 March 2018 Choke to render insensible pursuant to s 27(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 10 years of imprisonment

3 years and 6 months of imprisonment (reduced from 4 years)

  1. The total head sentence imposed was 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The sentence was backdated to commence from…

Continue reading Lewis v Storey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lewis v Storey [2019] ACTSC 74
Case
[2019] ACTSC 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Lewis v Storey was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Lewis, was sentenced by a Magistrate in the Local Court to a term of imprisonment for an offence that the Magistrate described as attempted murder. Lewis sought to appeal the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and that the Magistrate erred in describing the offence as attempted murder, among other grounds. Additionally, Lewis argued that the Magistrate had incorrectly calculated the discounts for his pleas of guilty.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and if the Magistrate had correctly characterised the offence and calculated the discounts for the pleas of guilty. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the application of judicial discretion in sentencing. The court needed to assess if the Magistrate's characterisation of the offence was legally sound and whether the sentence, after appropriate discounts, was commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.

The court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The characterisation of the offence as attempted murder was found to be legally correct, despite Lewis's argument to the contrary. However, the court did find that the Magistrate had erred in the calculation of discounts for the pleas of guilty, which had a minor impact on the overall sentence. The court emphasised the importance of accurate sentencing calculations but concluded that the error did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal and a clarification on the calculation of discounts for pleas of guilty. The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the Magistrate but provided guidance on the correct application of sentencing discounts in future proceedings. The final orders ensured that the correct principles were applied in sentencing, with a clear understanding of the legal framework governing such matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [54]-[56].

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.