Police v Schutt - [2018] SASC 75

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
POLICE v SCHUTT
[2018] SASC 75
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
1 June 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCING PROVISIONS
Appeal against sentence.
The appellant pleaded guilty to 14 offences including driving a motor vehicle while disqualified, breach bail, damaging property, driving with the intention to cause a police officer to engage in pursuit, illegal interference, possess an implement for consumption of a controlled substance and theft. The offences were committed between 19 March 2017 and 22 December 2017 after a downward spiral in the appellant’s life following the breakdown of two significant relationships, one of which was characterised by drug use. The appellant had never before been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
In respect of nine of the 14 offences, the Magistrate sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 14 months with a non-parole period of six months. The appellant was disqualified from obtaining a licence for a total period of nine years in respect of 11 of the 14 offences, that disqualification to commence on the date of his release from custody.
On appeal the appellant advanced a number of grounds including that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate and the period of licence disqualification were manifestly excessive.
Held, allowing the appeal:
1. The incorporation within the total period of imprisonment imposed of a period of imprisonment for offences which in all the circumstances could not reasonably be said to warrant such penalty was plainly wrong. Accordingly the sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive and the sentencing discretion miscarried.
2. The total period of licence disqualification was manifestly excessive.
Bail Act 1985 (SA) s 17; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 33L(1)(c); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), ss 19AC, 86A, 134; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA); Criminal Law Sentencing Act 2017 (SA); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA), s 74(1); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47BA, referred to.
Gannon v Harper SASC (Unreported, 20 July 1989: Judgment No 1627); Meeuwsen v Police [2003] SASC 306, discussed.

POLICE v SCHUTT
[2018] SASC 75
Magistrates Appeals
HINTON J:

This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Ronald Schutt, pleaded guilty to the 14 offences set out in the table below. Utilising s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) (the 1988 Sentencing Act), a Magistrate sentenced the appellant to one penalty for nine of the 14 offences committed between 19 March 2017 and 22 December 2017. That penalty was imprisonment for 14 months with a non-parole period of six months. Further, the appellant was disqualified from obtaining a driver’s licence for a total period of nine years in respect of 11 of the 14 offences, that disqualification to commence on the date of his release from custody.
The appellant contends that the sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive. In…

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 Schutt

Details

AGLC: Police v Schutt [2018] SASC 75
Case: [2018] SASC 75
Decision Date: 1 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the appellant against his sentence, which was imposed after a conviction for various criminal offences. The appellant challenged the sentencing provisions, arguing that the total punishment was disproportionate to his offending conduct and his personal circumstances. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentencing decision made by the lower court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and proportionate to the appellant's offending conduct and personal circumstances. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality. The court also needed to interpret the relevant sentencing provisions and assess whether they were applied correctly by the lower court.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the appellant's overall criminality, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as his personal circumstances. The court noted that the appellant had a history of criminal behaviour, which included serious offences, but also took into account his age, background, and potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the total punishment imposed by the lower court was not disproportionate to the offending conduct and that the sentencing provisions were applied correctly. However, the court found that the lower court had not adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances and therefore allowed the appeal. The appellant was resentenced in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Standing back and considering the penalties I have imposed as a response to the appellant’s overall criminality, bearing in mind his personal circumstances, I decline to make any further adjustment. I do not think the totality of the punishment is disproportionate to the offending conduct.Conclusion The appeal is allowed and the appellant is resentenced in accordance with these reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.