Legal Research
Cases
Police v Hatty

Police v Hatty

Case [2007] SASC 180 21 May 2007

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v HATTY
[2007] SASC 180
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Layton
21 May 2007
MAGISTRATES - APPEALS FROM AND CONTROL OVER MAGISTRATES - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - FORGERY AND UTTERING
Appeal by the Police against sentence imposed by a Magistrate - respondent pleaded guilty to 20 counts of forgery and 20 counts of uttering - respondent misappropriated a total of $168,828 from her employer, a not-for-profit organisation for indigenous women - Magistrate imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months, wholly suspended on entering a three year bond - the Police appeal on the grounds that sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and that the Magistrate erred in suspending the term of imprisonment - Held: Appeal allowed - sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate - Magistrate erred in characterising the offences as "unsophisticated" and motivated by comfort rather than greed, and in assuming that the respondent had co-operated with police - there was no good reason to suspend - respondent re-sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with non-parole period of 10 months.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 ss 7, 7A, referred to.
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; Police v Cadd & Ors (1997) 69 SASR 150; Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293; R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; Director of Public Prosecutions v Leach (2003) 139 A Crim R 64, applied.
R v Hicks (1987) 45 SASR 270; R v Knott [2007] SASC 74; R v Davies (1996) 88 A Crim R 226; R v Cavanagh [1999] SASC 418; R v Powell (2001) 81 SASR 9; R v Musolino [2004] SASC 89; Police v Curtis & Marshall [2004] SASC 184; R v Ivic [2006] SASC 8; R v Penno (2004) 236 LSJS 457; Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, considered.

POLICE v HATTY
[2007] SASC 180
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
LAYTON J:
Introduction

This is a Crown appeal against sentence pursuant to s 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA). On 2 March 2007 the respondent pleaded guilty to 20 counts of forgery and 20 counts of uttering. The maximum penalty for each count is imprisonment for life.
The offences were committed over a period of approximately 10 months and related to defalcation of funds from her employer, the Nunga Minimis Shelter Inc of $168,828 (‘the Shelter’). The Shelter is a not-for-profit organisation for indigenous women. The Magistrate identified a starting point of three years imprisonment which he discounted by nine months (presumably for the plea of guilty) and imposed a non-parole period of nine months, 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 Police v Hatty

Details

AGLC: Police v Hatty [2007] SASC 180
Case: [2007] SASC 180
Decision Date: 21 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Hatty, the appellant, the Police, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by a Magistrate on the respondent, Hatty, who had pleaded guilty to 20 counts of forgery and 20 counts of uttering. The respondent had misappropriated a total of $168,828 from her employer, a not-for-profit organisation for indigenous women. The Magistrate sentenced Hatty to 27 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months, wholly suspended on the condition that she enter a three-year bond. The Police appealed on the grounds that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that the Magistrate had erred in suspending the term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly inadequate and whether the Magistrate had erred in suspending the term of imprisonment. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and whether the reasons provided by the Magistrate for suspending the sentence were valid.

The court held that the appeal was allowed. It found that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly inadequate. The court was critical of the Magistrate's characterisation of the offences as "unsophisticated" and motivated by comfort rather than greed. The court also found that the Magistrate had erred in assuming that the respondent had co-operated with police. The court concluded that there was no good reason to suspend the sentence and that the respondent should be re-sentenced. Hatty was re-sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was set aside, and the respondent was re-sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months.

Orders