Preston v Carnall

Case [2015] ACTSC 325


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Preston v Carnall

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 325

Hearing Date(s):

15 December 2014

DecisionDate:

28 October 2015

Before:

Refshauge ACJ

Decision:

1.   The sealed order of the Magistrates Court in respect of charge CC 2013/40640 be varied by deleting the order for payment of professional costs and the order for payment of the levy under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT).

2.   The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

3.   The Good Behaviour Order made on 14 February 2014 end on 28 August 2016.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – appeal from the Magistrates Court – causing an animal unnecessary pain – taking a native animal – appeal by way of rehearing – seeking to adduce further evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – seeking the opinion of a lay informant – Barbaro v The Queen

APPEAL – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – appeal against conviction – guilty plea – seeking withdrawal of guilty plea – that a plea is not entered personally is an irregularity and not a nullity – charge bargaining process

Legislation Cited:

Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT), ss7, 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b), 81, Pt 7

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 34(1)(e) and (f)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 138
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 192(2)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 208(1)(b), 209, 214, 216, Pt 3.10, Div 3.10.2
Nature Conservation Act 1980 (ACT), ss 17, 34, 45, 45(1), 45(1)(b), 46, 46(1)(b), 130, 130(2), Dictionary
Nature Conservation Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna 2002 (No 2) (ACT) , Sch 2
Victims of Crimes Act 1994 (ACT), ss 24, 26
Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT), ss 68, 69

Cases Cited:

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372

Central Queensland Speleological Society Inc v Central Queensland Cement Pty Ltd (1989) 73 LGRA 218
Grooms v Toohey (2012) 7 ACTLR 1
Licciardello v McPherson [2012] ACTSC 31
Lukatela v Birch (2008) 164 ACTR 24
Mayen v Ryan (No 2) (2014) 282 FLR 435
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79
R v Brown (1989) 17 NSWLR 472
R v Gomez (2007) 1 ACTLR 145
R v Gray [1977] VR 225
R v Tamawiwy (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 303
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545
Trainor (1991) 56 A Crim R 102
Travini v Starczewski (2009) 169 ACTR 1
Yam (1991) 55 A Crim R 116

Texts Cited:

ACT Magistrates Court, Practice Direction No 1 of 2009, ‘Case Management Hearings and Committal Hearings’

Macquarie Dictionary

Parties:

Nora Preston (Appellant)

Rodney Carnall (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

In person (Appellant)

Ms K MacKenzie (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s):

SCA 20 of 2014

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Doogan

Date of Decision:         14 February 2014

Case Title:  Rodney Carnall v…

Continue reading Preston v Carnall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Preston v Carnall [2015] ACTSC 325
Case
[2015] ACTSC 325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a decision made by the Magistrates Court, where the appellant faced charges related to causing an animal unnecessary pain and taking a native animal. The respondent, acting as the prosecutor, pursued the case on behalf of the ACT. The appellant sought a rehearing of the matter, aiming to present additional evidence and challenge the conviction and sentence. The appeal focused on the procedural irregularities and the appropriateness of the sentence, particularly the imposition of professional costs and the levy under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT).

The legal issues central to this appeal encompassed the procedural correctness of the Magistrates Court's handling of the case, including the acceptance of a guilty plea that was not personally entered by the appellant. The appellant argued that this irregularity should render the plea void, leading to the potential withdrawal of the plea. Additionally, the appeal questioned the proportionality of the sentence, particularly the imposition of professional costs and the levy, and sought clarification on the appropriate method for determining the sentence, including whether the opinion of a lay informant could be considered. The appellant also contested the validity of the charge bargaining process and its impact on the sentence.

The court meticulously reviewed the procedural steps taken by the Magistrates Court and determined that while the absence of a personal plea was indeed an irregularity, it did not render the plea null and void. The court found that the charge bargaining process was conducted appropriately and that the sentence imposed was within the permissible range. Furthermore, the court clarified that the imposition of professional costs and the levy was justified under the relevant legislation. The court also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the lay informant's opinion, reiterating that such opinions should not influence sentencing decisions.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. However, it varied the sealed order of the Magistrates Court by deleting the order for payment of professional costs and the order for payment of the levy under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT). The Good Behaviour Order was also adjusted to end on 28 August 2016. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance while also affirming the court's discretion in sentencing matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sealed order of the Magistrates Court in respect of charge CC 2013/40640 be varied by deleting the order for payment of professional costs and the order for payment of the levy under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT).

2. The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

3. The Good Behaviour Order made on 14 February 2014 end on 28 August 2016.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.