Mason v The King - [2024] NTCCA 13

CITATION:Mason v The King [2024] NTCCA 13
PARTIES:MASON, Joshua
v

THE KING

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 5 of 2024 (22216553)
DELIVERED:  10 December 2024
HEARING DATE:  6 December 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Kelly, Brownhill & Burns JJ
CATCHWORDS:

SENTENCING – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Marked differences between appellant’s sentences and comparative cases – Sentences imposed plainly excessive – Appeal allowed – Unnecessary to consider other grounds – Leave to appeal on those grounds refused.
AB v The King [2023] NTCCA 8, Edmond & Moreen v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 9, Forrest v The Queen (2017) 267 A Crim R 494, Phan v Western Australia [2014] WASCA 144, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant:  I L Read SC with J Begbie
Respondent:  L Babb SC with LJ Auld
Solicitors:
Appellant:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 36

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Mason v The King [2024] NTCCA 13
No. CA 5 of 2024 (22216553)

BETWEEN:

JOSHUA MASON
Appellant
AND:

THE KING
Respondent

CORAM: KELLY, BROWNHILL & BURNS JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10 December 2024)
THE COURT:

The appellant was 23 years old when he offended. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court for one count each of hit and run, attempting to defeat the course of justice and improperly interfering with a dead body or human remains. The issues in the appeal are whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or infected by specific error in the misapplication of principles applicable to double punishment.
The offences
Following pleas of guilty, on 13 December 2023, the appellant was convicted of the following charges:[1]
(a)a count of hit and run, committed on 30 May 2022, contrary to s 174FA(1) of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) (Count 1);
(b)a count of attempting to defeat the course of justice, committed on 30 and 31 May 2022, contrary to s 190 of the Criminal Code (Count 2); and
(c)a count of improperly interfering with a dead body or human remains, committed on 30 and 31 May 2022, contrary to s 140 of the Criminal Code (‘Count 3’).
The maximum penalties for the offences are imprisonment for 10 years for Count 1, imprisonment for 15 years for Count 2 and imprisonment for two years for Count 3.
The sentence
The appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for six years, as follows:
(a)three years for Count 1;
(b)five years for Count 2, with 1 year to be served cumulatively upon Count 1; and
(c)one year for Count 3, to be served concurrently with the sentences for Count 1.
It was ordered that the sentence be backdated to 1 June 2022 to take account of time in…

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 Mason v The King

Details

AGLC: Mason v The King [2024] NTCCA 13
Case: [2024] NTCCA 13
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mason appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of marked differences between the appellant's sentence and those imposed in comparable cases.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was so disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the circumstances of the offender as to be demonstrably unjust or unreasonable. This required the Court to consider the principles of sentencing and to compare the sentence with those imposed in similar cases.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed were plainly excessive. Applying the principles of sentencing and having regard to comparative cases, the Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and it was unnecessary to consider the other grounds of appeal. Leave to appeal on those other grounds was refused.

Orders