Namatjira v Cornford - [2006] NTSC 63

Namatjira v Cornford [2006] NTSC 63
PARTIES:NAMATJIRA, Lisa Swift
v

CORNFORD, Michael

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 17 of 2006 (20530852)
DELIVERED:  11 August 2006
HEARING DATE:  2 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Olsson AJ
APPEAL FROM:  Court of Summary Jurisdiction sentence, Mr M Carey SM, 17 February 2006
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – JUSTICES

Appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the offending – appellant’s criminal history a relevant consideration -
Appeal against sentence – conditions of suspended sentence – learned magistrate not fully informed as to practicality of condition as to residence –
Appeal allowed
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, followed
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, followed
Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR 509, followed
Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 8, followed
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:K Roussos
Respondent: C Roberts

Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ols0610
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Namatjira v Cornford [2006] NTSC 63
No JA 17 of 2006 (20530852)

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 Alice Springs

BETWEEN:

NAMATJIRA, Lisa Swift
Appellant

AND:

CORNFORD, Michael
Respondent

CORAM: OLSSON AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 11 August 2006)
Background

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 18 December 2005 at Alice Springs, she attempted to commit a crime, namely stealing.
The learned magistrate recorded a conviction in respect of the offence and sentenced the appellant to one month imprisonment, to be suspended forthwith with an operational period of 12 months. It was a condition of the suspension that the appellant travel to Kwala Outstation by 20 February 2006 and remain there during the period of operation and not enter Alice Springs except for medical emergencies.
The appellant complains that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Reliance is placed, in the amended grounds of appeal filed in this matter, on a number of issues related to that aspect - to which I shall come in due course.

The relevant facts

The Court was informed that, at about 11:27 p.m. on 18 December 2005, the appellant was at the Coles Supermarket in Alice Springs looking for food because she was hungry. She removed several items from shelves in the store and placed them down the front of her pants.
The appellant was noticed by staff on another occasion putting an item down the front of her pants. Presumably because she became aware that her action had been seen at that time,…

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 Namatjira v Cornford

Details

AGLC: Namatjira v Cornford [2006] NTSC 63
Case: [2006] NTSC 63
Decision Date: 11 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of Namatjira v Cornford involved the appellant, Namatjira, challenging the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate Cornford. The primary dispute centred on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, with particular consideration given to the appellant's criminal history. Additionally, the appellant argued that the conditions of the suspended sentence were not fully understood by the magistrate, particularly the condition concerning the appellant's place of residence, which was deemed impractical.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the conditions of the suspended sentence were appropriately imposed. The appeal also required scrutiny of the learned magistrate's consideration of the appellant's criminal history and its relevance to the sentencing decision. The court needed to assess whether the magistrate was adequately informed about the practicalities of the conditions imposed, particularly the residential condition.

The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, taking into account the appellant's criminal history. The appeal was allowed based on the principles set out in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) and other relevant precedents. The court emphasised the need for proportionality in sentencing and highlighted that the learned magistrate did not fully consider the practicality of the residential condition, as required by the precedents in House v The King and Cranssen v The King. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for resentencing.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the remitting of the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing, with specific instructions to consider the proportionality of the sentence and the practicalities of the conditions imposed. The court underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences are neither excessive nor disproportionate and that conditions are realistic and informed.

Orders