SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Murray v IA |
Citation: | [2020] ACTSC 288 |
Hearing Date: | 12 October 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 12 October 2020 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [46] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from the Magistrates Court against sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – respondent assaulted her son – magistrate made a non‑conviction order with a good behaviour order – whether the magistrate misapplied the parity principle and doctrine of precedent – she did – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate – it was not – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 24 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 33(1)(za) Spent Convictions Act 2000 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Cowie v Gungahlin Veterinary Services Pty Ltd [2016] ACTSC 311 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 |
Parties: | Andrew Murray (Appellant) IA (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel K McCann (Appellant) M Jones (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Kamy Saeedi Law (Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 26 of 2020 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Magistrate Boss Date of Decision: 5 June 2020 Case Title: The Police v IA Court File Number: CC 12727 of 2019 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). She had become angry with her 11‑year‑old son and slapped him on the left side of the face, pinched him several times on the upper left arm and punched him in the back with a closed fist. At the sentence hearing on 5 June 2020 the magistrate proceeded by way of s 17(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), by making a non-conviction order and imposing a good behaviour order for 12 months.
Grounds of appeal
The grounds of appeal that are set out in the Amended Notice of Appeal are:
(a)Her Honour failed to properly apply the principle of individualised justice;
(b)Her Honour misapplied the parity principle; and
(c)The sentence imposed in relation to the offence is manifestly inadequate.
The appellant did not press ground (a).
Ground (b) was elaborated upon insofar as the appellant contended that, as part of the…
Continue reading Murray v IA
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288
- Case
- [2020] ACTSC 288
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles guiding sentencing in cases of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. It considered the parity principle, which requires sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the doctrine of precedent, which mandates consistency in sentencing similar cases. The court scrutinised the magistrate's application of these principles, concluding that they had indeed been misapplied. However, despite this misapplication, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence, though influenced by an incorrect application of legal principles, was deemed sufficient in this context.
The court's reasoning underscored the importance of correctly applying legal principles in sentencing, yet it affirmed that Murray's sentence, despite the errors, was not so disproportionate as to warrant an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.
The court did not alter the original sentence but emphasised the necessity for magistrates to correctly apply sentencing principles. The non-conviction order and good behaviour order remained in place as determined by the Magistrates Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [46]
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.