SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Lyngstad v Cox |
Citation: | [2023] ACTSC 192 |
Hearing Date: | 6 July 2023 |
Decision Date: | 21 July 2023 |
Before: | McWilliam J |
Decision: | See [61] |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against sentence – failure of sentencing magistrate to apply discount for guilty plea – appeal allowed – re-exercise of sentencing discretion – backdated sentence imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 49 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, ,12 (1)(b), 33, 35, 35A, 36, 37, 63 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 326 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 207, 208, 216, 218 |
Cases Cited: | Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 Craig Farrell Ledson v Christopher Richard Taylor, Mark Patrick Robison and Luke James Brown [2010] ACTSC 42; 239 FLR 184 DD v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 115 Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601 Kirby v Ali [2021] ACTSC 95; 358 FLR 288 KN v Frizzell [2020] ACTSC 217 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357 McLeod v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 59 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 R v UG [2018] ACTCA 64; 14 ACTLR 70 SBT v Wright [2021] ACTSC 322; 17 ACTLR 137 Skeen v Bannerman [2012] ACTSC 40 Urlich v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 30; 14 ACTLR 267 Ursino v Read [2005] ACTSC 106 |
Texts Cited: | Encyclopaedic Australian Legal Dictionary (Lexis Nexis) |
Parties: | Sarah Lyngstad (Appellant) Jessica Cox (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel E Chen ( Appellant) E Roff ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 4 of 2022 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Hunter Date of Decision: 17 February 2022 Case Title: The Police v Lyngstad Court File Number: AM 487 of 2016 |
McWILLIAM J:
1․The appellant, Ms Sarah Lyngstad, appeals from a sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court on 17 February 2022 for the following four offences:
(a)Common Assault, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC2020/9022): Convicted and sentenced to a 12-month good behaviour order with core conditions only.
(b)Obtain Property by Deception, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC2020/13820): Convicted and sentenced to a 12-month good behaviour order with core conditions only.
(c)Failure to Appear, contrary to s 49 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) (CC2021/2071): Convicted and sentenced to…
Continue reading Lyngstad v Cox
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lyngstad v Cox [2023] ACTSC 192
- Case
- [2023] ACTSC 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles of sentencing and the need for consistency in applying discounts for guilty pleas. It found that the sentencing magistrate had overlooked the statutory requirement to reduce the sentence by 15%. The court considered this a significant error, as it directly impacted the final sentence imposed. Given the clear legislative directive and the importance of adhering to statutory requirements, the appeal was allowed. The court re-exercised its sentencing discretion, imposing a backdated sentence that reflected the appropriate discount for the guilty plea.
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence that included the mandated 15% reduction for the guilty plea. This decision underscores the necessity for sentencing magistrates to correctly apply statutory discounts and the appellate court's role in ensuring that legal principles are consistently applied.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [61]
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.