Minor v Allen - [2006] NTSC 58

Minor v Allen [2006] NTSC 58

PARTIES:MINOR, Cassandra
v

ALLEN, Robert James

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 6 of 2006 (20323911)
DELIVERED:  3 August 2006
HEARING DATES:  20 July 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Olsson AJ
APPEAL FROM:  Court of Summary Jurisdiction sentence, Ms M Little SM, 20 February 2006
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – JUSTICES

Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sufficient weight given to offender’s young age, plea of guilty and limited antecedents – policy of legislation – prevalent offence – prior offence under the Liquor Act - sentence not manifestly excessive –
Appeal dismissed
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, followed
Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509, followed
Driver v The Queen (1989)97 FLR 23, followed
Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 8, followed
Nunn v Calma [2005] NTSC 54, distinguished
R v Egan SCC 20529705, 10 February 2006, not followed
R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, not followed
Justices Act (NT)
Liquor Act (NT), s 75(1)(a)
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Kenny
Respondent:  N Rogers
Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ols0607
Number of pages:  5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Minor v Allen [2006] NTSC 58
JA 6 of 2006 (20323911)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:
MINOR, Cassandra
Appellant
AND:
ALLEN, Robert James
Respondent

CORAM: OLSSON AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a stipendiary magistrate consequent upon the appellant entering a plea of guilty to a charge that, on 3 October 2003, she brought liquor (in the form of 11 two litre casks of Stanley tawny port) into a restricted area, namely the Papunya Restricted Area, contrary to s75(1)(a) of the Liquor Act.

A conviction was recorded against her on 20 February 2006 and she was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and 14 days from 17 February 2006, to be suspended after serving 10 days from that date, with an operative period of 12 months.

She complains that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The relevant facts

On 3 October 2003 the police stopped a Ford motor car driven by the appellant when it was about 800 metres inside the boundary of the Papunya Restricted Area. Upon searching the vehicle they found 11 two litre casks of tawny port.

The appellant told the police that the liquor had been purchased in Alice Springs and was being taken to Illi Illi Outstation for the purposes of her birthday party. The vehicle was seized and the appellant was charged with the above offence.

She appeared before the court on 3 July 2004 and…

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 Minor v Allen

Details

AGLC: Minor v Allen [2006] NTSC 58
Case: [2006] NTSC 58
Decision Date: 3 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minor v Allen involved an appeal against the sentencing of the respondent, Allen, by a justice of the peace. The appeal was against the sentence imposed on Allen for an offence under the Liquor Act (NT). The appellant, Minor, argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient weight was given to Allen's young age, plea of guilty, and limited antecedents. The appeal was heard by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing magistrate had given sufficient weight to certain mitigating factors.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing magistrate had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors. The court considered the policy of the legislation and the prevalent nature of the offence. The court also took into account that Allen had a prior offence under the Liquor Act. The court followed previous cases such as House v The King, Cranssen v The King, Driver v The Queen, and Liddy v The Queen, and distinguished Nunn v Calma. The court did not follow the cases of R v Egan and R v Mills.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Allen was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the sentencing magistrate had considered Allen's young age, plea of guilty, and limited antecedents, and had also taken into account the policy of the legislation and the prevalent nature of the offence. The appeal was dismissed. No further orders were made.

Orders