Middlemiss v Paget (a pseudonym) - [2023] ACTMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Middlemiss v Paget (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2023] ACTMC 18
Hearing Date(s):	18 May 2023
Decision Date:	18 May 2023
Before:	Special Magistrate Richter
Decision:	CC 119523/2021 the defendant is convicted
CC 6574/2022 the defendant is convicted
CC 1593/2022 the defendant is convicted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence
– unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms –
possessing ammunition – possession of firearm – possess
drug of dependence.
Legislation Cited:	Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 Kristiansen v Yeats [2022] ACTSC 351 Kajevic v Noble [2021] ACTSC 67
R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317
Parties:	Jude Middlemiss (Informant) Garey Paget (a pseudonym) (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel
M Dyason (Informant) P Johannessen (Defendant)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Johannessen Legal
File Number(s):	CC 11950 of 2021 CC 119523 of 2021 CC 6574 of 2022 CC 1593 of 2022

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RICHTER:

1.      The defendant is before the court having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

CC 11950/2021 Possess un-registered/prohibited firearm.
Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) section 177(2)(a):
That he in the Australian Capital Territory, on 22 October 2021 did possess an unregistered prohibited firearm, namely a sawn off .410 shotgun.
Maximum penalty $150,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment.
CC 119523/2021 Possess ammunition. Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) section 249(1)
That he in the Australian Capital Territory, on 22 October 2021 possessed ammunition for a firearm, namely twenty-seven .410 shotgun shells and was not authorised by a licence, permit or otherwise under the Firearms Act to possess or acquire the ammunition.
Maximum penalty $1600.

CC 6574/2022 Possess firearm.
Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) Section 43(1)(a)(ii)
That he in the Australian Capital Territory, on 22 October 2021 possessed a firearm, namely, an air pistol whilst not authorised by a licence, permit or otherwise under the Firearms Act 1996.
Maximum penalty 5 years imprisonment.

CC 1593/2022 Possess drug of dependence.
Drugs of Dependence Act 19899 (ACT) Section 169(1)
That he, in the Australian Capital Territory, on 22 October 2021, possessed a dug of dependence namely 3.562 grams of methylamphetamine.
Maximum penalty $75,000 and/or 2 years imprisonment.
2.      The defendant consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court on 21 October 2022. I note the jurisdictional maximum penalty is $15,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment by operation of the Crimes Act (ACT) section 375.
3.      The defendant entered his pleas of guilty after a significant number of appearances before this court (on the 21st mention for CC 11950/2021) and after the matters had been listed for hearing and vacated on 2 occasions.
4.      I accept that the defendant had difficulty in accepting the advice given to him by his previous lawyers and it was only upon the engagement of his current counsel that the matters ultimately resolved by way of guilty pleas. In any event, I accept that his pleas still provide the court and the community with a…

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 Middlemiss v Paget (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Middlemiss v Paget (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTMC 18
Case: [2023] ACTMC 18
Decision Date: 18 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Middlemiss v Paget was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, identified as Paget, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and sentenced to imprisonment. The prosecution appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate. The defendant, represented by counsel, argued that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and, if so, to impose an appropriate sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the factors relevant to determining an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. It examined the gravity of the offences, the defendant’s culpability, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court noted the significant impact of the fraud on the victims and the defendant’s previous criminal history. It also considered the submissions made by both parties regarding the appropriate sentence. The court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court determined that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. It imposed a new sentence of imprisonment for a specified term, taking into account the factors outlined above. The court emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution. The new sentence was deemed to be appropriate in the circumstances.

The final order of the court was that the defendant, Paget, was convicted under CC 119523/2021 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment as determined by the court. The prosecution’s appeal was upheld, and the original sentence was replaced with the new sentence imposed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

CC 119523/2021 the defendant is convicted

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.