SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Norman v Jones |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 11 |
Hearing Date: | 18 July 2023 |
Decision Date: | 1 February 2024 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The sentence imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court on 26 August 2022 is set aside and the appellant is re-sentenced as follows: (a) In respect of the charge of common assault (CAN10940/2022), I make a non-conviction order pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal from sentence – offence of common assault –– whether error in consideration of s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – whether extenuating circumstances exist – appeal allowed – offender re-sentenced – non-conviction order imposed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 |
Cases Cited: | Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159; 291 A Crim R 495 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600 |
Parties: | M Norman ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel K Lee ( Appellant) C Mutharajah ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Tim Sharman Solicitors ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 50 of 2022 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 29 November 2022 Case Title: Jones v Norman Court File Number: CC2022/10940 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:
Introduction
1․This is a sentence appeal from a decision of Magistrate Theakston (the Magistrate). The appellant, Ms Norman, pleaded guilty to an offence of common assault contrary to s 26(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The appellant was sentenced with the imposition of a conviction and released upon entering into a Good Behaviour Order (GBO) for a period of nine months.
2․As the appeal hearing proceeded before me on 18 July 2023, it was clear that the fundamental issue before this Court, on appeal, was the issue of “extenuating circumstances”.
3․I note at the outset that, for the reasons set out below, I have come to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in…
Continue reading Norman v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Norman v Jones [2024] ACTSC 11
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the appeal involved the appropriate application of section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Magistrates Court correctly identified and weighed the extenuating circumstances that might justify the imposition of a non-conviction order, as opposed to a conviction and penalty. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had overlooked relevant factors or had misapplied the statutory criteria.
Upon review, the court found that the Magistrates Court had indeed erred in its application of section 17. The reasoning given was that the trial judge had not adequately considered the mitigating factors presented by the appellant, which were significant enough to warrant a non-conviction order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced with a non-conviction order imposed under section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was set aside, reflecting the court's conclusion that a non-conviction order was more appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The sentence imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court on 26 August 2022 is set aside and the appellant is re-sentenced as follows:
(a) In respect of the charge of common assault (CAN10940/2022), I make a non-conviction order pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
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.