Lodding v Barnes - [2019] ACTSC 335

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Lodding v Barnes
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 335
Hearing Date:	26 November 2019
DecisionDate:	26 November 2019
ReasonsDate:	3 December 2019
Before:	Ashford AJ
Decision:	See [19]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Sentence – trafficking a controlled drug – whether the Magistrate provided adequate reasons for sentencing decision – whether the Magistrate gave adequate consideration to sentencing alternatives – appeal upheld CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – conviction confirmed – appellant re-sentenced
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603
Parties:	Robert John Lodding (Appellant) Wayde Barnes (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel R Thomas (Appellant) E Wren (Respondent)
Solicitors Fitzgerald Naylor Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 42 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Stewart Date of Decision: 23 July 2019 Case Title: Barnes v Lodding Court File Number: CC2018/14704

Ashford AJ:

Robert John Lodding appears before me today appealing the severity of a sentence imposed upon him in the Magistrate's Court in relation to the offence of trafficking a controlled drug, being methylamphetamine, pursuant to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for ten years.

The offender entered a plea of guilty. The penalty imposed by the magistrate was that of a custodial sentence of 15 months (less 1 day) from 23 July 2019 to 21 October 2020 with a nonparole period of 10 months (less 1 day) to expire on 21 May 2020.

It appears from the facts found by the learned magistrate the appellant's residence was searched on 11 December 2018. 114.169 grams of 76.5% pure methylamphetamine was found on his premises. Scales were found in the garage. The offender made admissions at that time. It seems that he had been a long-term user of methylamphetamine, and his evidence was that he had sold that drug to fund his addiction, not for other commercial purposes.

From the material before me it is clear that he had some prior offences, those being in 1997 and 2004 and since that time there has been no other drug offence or other matter relevant to these proceedings. I understand that he has been in employment and has trade qualifications. Since he has been in custody and since his arrest, I understand there to have been clean urinalysis and that the offender has accepted responsibility for his actions and that there is insight into his offending behaviour.

The appellant makes submissions to me that the reasons given by the magistrate for imposition of a custodial sentence do not expose his reasoning sufficiently and that on that and other grounds the conviction and sentence the appeal should be allowed. It is submitted that the magistrate did not set out the steps which he had taken into account to expose his reasoning and whilst he did look at the provisions of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), he did…

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 Lodding v Barnes

Details

AGLC: Lodding v Barnes [2019] ACTSC 335
Case: [2019] ACTSC 335
Decision Date: 26 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lodding v Barnes, the appellant, Lodding, sought to appeal the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the sentence handed down for the offence of trafficking a controlled drug, specifically whether the Magistrate had provided adequate reasons for the sentencing decision and whether sufficient consideration was given to sentencing alternatives. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which found in favour of the appellant.

The primary legal issues were whether the Magistrate's sentencing decision was flawed due to insufficient reasons and whether the court had adequately considered available sentencing alternatives. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the Magistrate had failed to properly weigh the mitigating factors and explore non-custodial sentencing options. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the Magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for the sentence imposed, particularly in relation to the weighing of mitigating factors and consideration of sentencing alternatives. The court held that the Magistrate had failed to sufficiently explore non-custodial sentencing options and had not adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for re-sentencing.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction but remitted the matter to the Magistrates' Court for re-sentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of providing detailed reasons for sentencing decisions and ensuring that all available sentencing options are properly considered. The final orders were that the conviction was upheld, and the case was remitted for re-sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]

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.