Pappin v The Queen - [2005] NTCCA 2

[Back]

Pappin v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 2

PARTIES: PAPPIN, Christopher

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: CA11 of 2004 (20316351)

DELIVERED: 18 February 2005

HEARING DATES: 7 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL & SOUTHWOOD JJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Appeal on sentence – specific deterrence – suspended sentence – whether manifestly excessive – whether intoxication a mitigating, aggravating or neutral factor – weight of intoxication as mitigating factor – bail – whether restrictive bail conditions taken into account on sentencing – aggravated assault – range of penalties in Magistrates Court – relevance – appeal dismissed.

R v Bruce and Hollick (1998) 71 SASR 536; R v Malesevic (1999) 204 LSJS 32; R v Allen [1999] SASC 346; R v Nguyen [2004] SASC 405, followed.
R v Sewell and Walsh (1981) 29 SASR 12; Birch v Fitzgerald (1975) 11 SASR 114, applied.
R v Lane (1990) 53 SASR 480; R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459; R v Walker (unreported, Court of Appeal Victoria, 31 May 1996); R v Groom [1999] 2 VR 159, considered.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: J Tippett QC
Respondent: NTLAC

Solicitors:
Appellant: M Carey
Respondent: DPP

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: Mar0502
Number of pages: 17

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Pappin v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 2
No. CA 11 of 2004

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER PAPPIN
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL & SOUTHWOOD JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 18 February 2005)

Martin (BR) CJ:
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a Judge of this Court for an offence of aggravated assault. The learned sentencing Judge imposed a sentence of two years and three months imprisonment and directed that after the appellant had served nine months the balance of the sentence be suspended.
[2] The proposed grounds of appeal complain that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that significant errors by the sentencing Judge require interference by this Court.
Facts
[3] At the time of the offence in August 2003 the appellant was aged 18 years and one month. The female victim was a year nine student aged a little over 15 years and five months. The appellant and the victim were not known to each other.
[4] During the evening of Friday 22 August 2003 the appellant consumed a large quantity of alcohol at a nightclub in Alice Springs. He left the club at about 3am and commenced walking home along Gap Road.
[5] The victim spent that Friday evening with two girlfriends. She consumed a quantity of alcohol. The victim told police that at the time she set out to walk home she was a bit drunk.
[6] The victim’s route to her home took her along Gap Road. The facts of the offending which…

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 Pappin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pappin v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 2
Case: [2005] NTCCA 2
Decision Date: 18 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory heard an appeal by Christopher Pappin against a sentence imposed for aggravated assault. The appellant had been sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment, with the latter portion suspended after nine months. The grounds of appeal argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that significant errors had been made by the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the victim suffered psychological injury, whether restrictive bail conditions were adequately taken into account, and the role of intoxication as a mitigating, aggravating, or neutral factor in sentencing. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account specific deterrence and whether the decision to suspend only part of the sentence was appropriate.

The court reasoned that the finding of psychological injury was justified by the victim impact statement, and that while restrictive bail conditions could be considered, a sentencing court was not obliged to reduce the sentence based on them unless the curtailment of liberty was of significant substance. Regarding intoxication, the court held that it could operate as both a mitigating and aggravating factor, and in this case, these effects cancelled each other out, rendering intoxication neutral. The court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider specific deterrence given the nature of the unprovoked and violent attack, and that the judge had properly considered all relevant factors when deciding on the suspension of the sentence. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, with a minor adjustment to the commencement date of the sentence to account for time already spent in custody.

Orders