Peters v Pryce

[2000] NTSC 69

Peters v Pryce[2000] NTSC 69

PARTIES:PETERS, Nancy

v

PRYCE, Leonard David

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:JA 9 of 1999

DELIVERED:  31 August 2000

HEARING DATES:  19 July 1999 and 24 August 2000

JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:M O’Reilly

Respondent:  J Birch

Solicitors:

Appellant:NTLAC

Respondent:  DPP

Judgment category classification:      B

Judgment ID Number:  mar20028

Number of pages:  3

Mar20028

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Peters v Pryce [2000] NTSC 69
No. JA 9 of 1999

BETWEEN:

NANCY PETERS

Appellant

AND:

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

Respondent

CORAM:    MARTIN CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 31 August 2000)

1. Appeal against sentence imposed on 4 February 1999 in respect of offences which were committed in August 1995.  The appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, which was suspended upon condition that she accept supervision and the reasonable directions of the Director of Correctional Services as to a number of matters, including treatment for alcohol consumption over a period of six months, an operational period of 12 months was fixed.

2. The appellant had pleaded guilty for unlawful entry into a dwelling which occurred at about 8.30 in the morning with intention to steal, and stealing meat to the value of $30.  It appears she was caught in the act and simply waited whilst police were called.  She was motivated by need not greed.

3. She did not appear when required to do so to answer the charge shortly after the offences were committed, and it was not until February 1999 that she was arrested and brought before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

4. She had committed no offences in the meantime.

5. The appeal was lodged promptly and part heard by me in July 1999, but it appeared, as the submissions were being developed, that the present whereabouts of the appellant were not then known.  After hearing from both parties, I stood the matter over.

6. The matter came before me again on 24 August 2000.  The appellant had been located.  She had not offended in the meantime.

7. At the time of the offending the appellant was aged 30, or a little over, an aboriginal woman from a decidedly deprived background.  She had no prior convictions and has had none since.

8. Although it was conceded by counsel for the respondent upon the hearing before me in February last year that the sentence was not the sort of sentence one would expect to have been imposed in those days, prior to the advent of mandatory sentencing, it was nevertheless not manifestly excessive.

9. Looking at the sentencing pattern as it existed at about the time of the offending, I am satisfied that the sentence imposed of six months imprisonment was excessive, even though suspended.  It was plainly of concern to the learned Magistrate that special steps be taken with a view to trying to assist and rehabilitate the appellant who had fallen on very hard times and was much addicted to alcohol.  However, it was not necessary to impose a sentence of six months imprisonment for that, and if it remained on her record, it would be an indication of her having committed a much more serious offence than the objective facts and her personal circumstances warranted.

10. The sentence is quashed.

11. I consider that a conviction should be recorded, but that in all the circumstances of the case, particularly bearing in mind the period of time which has elapsed and her good behaviour in the meantime, no further order should be made.  She is discharged.

    -------------------------------------