Parry Jnr v Hales - [2003] NTSC 83

Parry Jnr v Hales [2003] NTSC 83
PARTIES:JOSEPH WILLIAM PARRY JNR

v
PETER WILLIAM HALES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA 110/03, 111/03, 112/03 (20216451, 20300301 & 20303841)
DELIVERED:  23 July 2003
HEARING DATES:  17 July 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person and disorderly conduct - judgment and punishment – appeal against decision not to suspend sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether insufficient weight to factors in mitigation
Criminal Code 1983 (NT) 188(2)(a)
Summary Offences Act 1996 (NT) 56(a)
Cransson v The King (1936) 55 CLR 520; R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464; Innes Wurramara v R (1999) 105 A Crim R 512, considered
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:B Cassells
Respondent:  T Austin
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  tho200327
Number of pages:  12

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Parry Jnr v Hales [2003] NTSC 83
Nos. JA110/03, 111/03, 112/03 (20216451, 20300301 & 20303841)

BETWEEN:
JOSEPH WILLIAM PARRY JNR

Appellant
AND:
PETER WILLIAM HALES

Respondent

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 23 July 2003)

This is an appeal from a sentence of a learned stipendiary magistrate sitting in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Daly River.
The appellant had entered pleas of guilty to two charges of aggravated assault. In each case the circumstance of aggravation was that the appellant was a male and the victim was a female. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of resist arrest and one charge of behave in a disorderly manner in a public place, namely, un-named streets in the Nauiyu community and the verandah of house 94 in the Nauiyu community.
The facts with respect to the first offence of assault and the offence of resist arrest are as follows:
“The defendant is in a de facto relationship - the victim in this matter Anne Louise Liddy, they have one 3-year old son Jamen(?) Parry. The defendant is employed by the Nauiyu Community workshop and is a permanent resident of the Nauiyu community. The defendant has direct family in Daly River and is culturally linked to Woodykupuldiya Outstation.
During the evening of Monday 4 November 2002 the defendant Joseph William Parry was at the drinking paddock within the Nauiyu community, the defendant with some friends consumed an unknown amount of VB beer whilst at the paddock. The defendant became intoxicated and returned to the Nauiyu community. At about 11:30 pm the defendant returned to house 94 within the Nauiyu community Daly River NT.
Upon arrival at his residence the defendant had a shower and was spoken - and was later spoken to by the victim in this matter Anne Louise Liddy. After the defendant’s partner inquired what he had been up to during the evening, the defendant became angry with the lack of…

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 Parry Jnr v Hales

Details

AGLC: Parry Jnr v Hales [2003] NTSC 83
Case: [2003] NTSC 83
Decision Date: 23 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parry Jnr v Hales, the appellant, Joseph William Parry Jnr, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by a learned stipendiary magistrate sitting in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Daly River. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including two counts of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and behaving in a disorderly manner in public places within the Nauiyu community. The central legal issues revolved around the severity of the sentence, the application of the principle of totality, the consideration of the effects of imprisonment, the weight given to rehabilitation, and the decision to suspend part of the sentence.

The court examined the grounds of appeal, which argued that the sentence for disorderly behaviour was excessively high, the magistrate failed to consider the principle of totality, did not properly weigh the impact of imprisonment, insufficiently considered rehabilitation, and erred in suspending the sentence. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's reoffending while on bail. The principle of totality was applied in constructing the sentence, and the magistrate did not err in acknowledging the limited research on the effects of imprisonment on young people. Rehabilitation was adequately considered, and the decision to suspend part of the sentence was within the magistrate's discretion.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dismissed the appeal, confirming the sentence imposed by the learned stipendiary magistrate. The court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor an error in the application of sentencing principles.

Orders