Legal Research
Cases
Liddy v R

Liddy v R

Case [2005] NTCCA 4 29 April 2005

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[Back]

Christopher Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 4

PARTIES: CHRISTOPHER LIDDY

v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: CA 15 of 2004 (20325700)

DELIVERED: 29 April 2005

HEARING DATES: 29 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, RILEY AND SOUTHWOOD JJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: I. Read
Respondent: J. Adams

Solicitors:
Appellant: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0508
Number of pages: 11

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Christopher Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 4
No CA 15 of 2004 (20325700)

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER LIDDY
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, RILEY AND SOUTHWOOD JJ

EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 29 April 2005)

MARTIN CJ
[1] I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Riley J. The formal order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed.
RILEY J
[2] On 9 March 2005 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years and six months with a non-parole period of three years and nine months in relation to three assaults committed upon his de facto wife in 2003. He appeals against that sentence on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
[3] The first offence in time (Count 3) occurred between 1 March 2003 and 31 October 2003. The appellant was at the victim’s flat and was working on a bicycle. They were arguing and the appellant swung a piece of wire, taken from the bicycle, around his head in order to frighten the victim. A brake part attached to the end of the wire dislodged and struck the victim on the ribs. As a result of the assault the victim suffered bruising to her ribs.
[4] The appellant acknowledged that it was clearly foreseeable that the victim may have been struck by the swinging wire. At the same time the victim told the appellant that she would leave and he threatened her by saying: “You better not. I’m going to smash your face. I’m going to keep punching till it’s smashed and no-one will want to look at you. And if that doesn’t work I’m going to kill you”. The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of aggravated unlawful assault causing the victim bodily harm. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for five years.
[5] The second offence in time (Count 1) occurred on 25 October 2003 when the appellant unlawfully assaulted his victim who suffered bodily harm. On that occasion the appellant and his victim had been together during the course of the day. The appellant verbally abused the victim and, as a consequence, she attempted to phone Dawn House to arrange emergency accommodation for herself. The appellant threw a chair at her and she put up her hands…

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 Liddy v R

Details

AGLC: Liddy v R [2005] NTCCA 4
Case: [2005] NTCCA 4
Decision Date: 29 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christopher Liddy appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory against a sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months, imposed for three assaults committed against his de facto wife in 2003. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in her exercise of discretion by imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offences, the appellant's guilty plea, and his criminal history. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentence reflected an error in principle or a misassessment of salient features of the evidence, and whether the appellant had demonstrated that the sentence was clearly and obviously, rather than merely arguably, excessive.

The Court reasoned that the assaults were serious, particularly the final assault which involved a deliberate breach of a domestic violence order and resulted in grievous bodily harm to the victim. The court noted the appellant's history of violence and his stated intention to use violence to control the victim, which indicated a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law. The court applied the principles from *Veen v R (No 2)* regarding the relevance of antecedent criminal history to demonstrate a continuing attitude of disobedience, retribution, deterrence, and protection of society. While acknowledging the appellant's early plea of guilty, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered it and that the sentence imposed, particularly for the most serious offence, was towards the top of the available range but within the proper exercise of discretion given the circumstances of the offending and the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders