Martin v Police - [2007] SASC 402

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
MARTIN v POLICE
[2007] SASC 402
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan (ex tempore)
12 November 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to attempting to deceive in order to benefit two other persons - Magistrate imposed a sentence of imprisonment which was to be cumulative upon a sentence received in the District Court - Magistrate extended non-parole period - Magistrate did not have before her the sentencing remarks delivered in the District Court - Magistrate did not have psychological report - held, allowing appeal, sentencing discretion miscarried as sentencing Magistrate did not have before her material relevant to the sentence.
C, GM v Police [2007] SASC 310; Holder & Ors v Lewis (2003) 231 LSJS 431; Kroon v Police [2005] SASC 70, considered.

MARTIN v POLICE
[2007] SASC 402
Magistrates Appeal

SULAN J (ex tempore): The appellant, Jaymark Delgado Martin, pleaded guilty in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court to attempting to deceive Daniel Nelson, an employer of Insurance Australia Group and by so doing enable Scott Robert McKenzie-Campbell and Tracey Anne Oliver to benefit. The offence was committed between 14 November 2005 and 16 November 2005 at Modbury.
On 9 August 2007, the Magistrate imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment and ordered that the sentence be served cumulatively upon a sentence of imprisonment for four years and six months that the appellant had received in the District Court on 2 May 2007, after pleading guilty to various offences. The Chief Judge, who sentenced the appellant in the District Court, ordered him serve a non-parole period of two years. The Magistrate extended the non-parole period to two years and four months.
The circumstances of the offending were that on 14 November 2005 the appellant telephoned Mr McKenzie-Campbell and indicated to Mr McKenzie‑Campbell that he was prepared to go ahead and assist Mr McKenzie-Campbell in relation to an offence that Mr McKenzie-Campbell intended to commit by submitting a false claim to an insurance company that his car had been stolen. The appellant’s role was to take the car after Mr McKenzie-Campbell had provided the keys and to get rid of it.
The role that the appellant played was to assist in the pretence that the car had been stolen. Two other people also assisted. It is not necessary in these reasons to go into the detail of their conduct.
At the time that the offence was committed the appellant was consuming drugs. He was also involved in selling ecstasy. He had a significant drug problem.
He appeared in the District Court before the Chief Judge on 2 May 2007 and pleaded guilty to a number of drug offences. The Chief Judge observed that there was evidence of the appellant dealing in drugs over a period of about three months. He was dealing in drugs both before…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Martin v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] SASC 402
Decision Date: 12 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin v Police, the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates Court for attempting to deceive two other persons for personal benefit. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, which was to be served cumulatively with a sentence previously received in the District Court. The non-parole period of the sentence was later extended by the Magistrate. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the Magistrate's sentencing discretion had miscarried due to the absence of certain materials before her at the time of sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate's failure to have before her the sentencing remarks delivered in the District Court and the psychological report amounted to a miscarriage of sentencing discretion. The appellant contended that these materials were relevant to the sentence and their absence resulted in an unjust outcome. The court had to determine whether the Magistrate's decision to extend the non-parole period was flawed due to the lack of these materials.

The court found that the Magistrate's sentencing discretion had indeed miscarried. It was held that the Magistrate did not have before her material relevant to the sentence, specifically the sentencing remarks from the District Court and the psychological report. The court concluded that these materials were essential for a proper understanding of the appellant's circumstances and the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside.

The court ordered a re-sentencing by another Magistrate, who would have before them all relevant materials. This decision underscored the importance of having all pertinent information available when imposing a sentence, to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Orders