Legal Research
Cases
R v Baldetti

R v Baldetti

Case [2008] SASC 232 22 August 2008

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BALDETTI
[2008] SASC 232
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice David)
22 August 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - PURPOSE OF SENTENCE - DETERRENCE
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, five counts relating to firearms, one count relating to a knuckle duster and one count of failing to answer questions - sentencing judge sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment in relation to the aircraft offence and another cumulative term of imprisonment in relation to four of the other offences - sentencing judge reduced total sentence for time spent in custody - whether sentencing judge erred in applying reduction to total sentence as opposed to individual sentences - held, sentencing judge should have specified to which sentence the reduction applied - matter remitted for sentencing judge to rectify technical error pursuant to s 9A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) - whether sentencing judge erred in the exercise of his discretion not to suspend the term of imprisonment pursuant to s 38(1) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) - whether sufficient weight placed upon appellant's personal circumstances - held, personal and general deterrence of the utmost importance in this case and outweighed appellant's personal circumstances.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Matter remitted to sentencing judge to rectify technical error pursuant to s 9A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA).

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, five counts relating to firearms, one count relating to a knuckle duster and one count of failing to answer questions - sentencing judge sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment in relation to the aircraft offence and another cumulative term of imprisonment in relation to four of the other offences - whether sentencing judge rejected appellant's explanation in relation to firearms offence and should have put the appellant on notice and allowed the appellant to call evidence - held, sentencing judge did not reject appellant's explanation.
Held: Permission to appeal refused.
Aircraft Offences Act 1971 (SA) s 10; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 9A, s 18A, s 38(1); Firearms Act 1977 (SA) s 11(1), s 29A(1); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 15(1a)(b), s 15(1c)(b), s 74AB(2)(a); Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA) reg 32(1), reg 53, referred to.
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; R v Fraser [2008] SASC 40 (Unreported, Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ, 14 February 2008); R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR…

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 R v Baldetti

Details

AGLC: R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232
Case: [2008] SASC 232
Decision Date: 22 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baldetti involved the appellant who pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, firearms offences, possession of a knuckle duster, and failing to answer questions. The sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment for the aircraft offence and a cumulative term for four of the other charges, with a reduction for time spent in custody. The appellant appealed against the sentence, raising two main issues: first, whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the reduction to the total sentence rather than individual sentences, and second, whether the judge erred in not suspending the term of imprisonment, particularly considering the appellant's personal circumstances. The appeal also questioned whether sufficient weight was placed on the appellant's personal circumstances and if general deterrence outweighed these considerations.

The court found that the sentencing judge should have specified to which sentence the reduction for time spent in custody applied. The error, though technical, required the matter to be remitted to the sentencing judge to rectify this pursuant to section 9A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA). Regarding the exercise of discretion not to suspend the term of imprisonment, the court held that personal and general deterrence were of paramount importance in this case. The judge's decision to not suspend the sentence was deemed correct, as the behaviour was deliberate and extremely dangerous, potentially having fatal consequences. The court concluded that the sentencing judge correctly assessed that a suspended sentence would not meet the requirement for general deterrence, which was more significant than the appellant's personal circumstances.

In light of these findings, the court decided to dismiss the appeal but remitted the matter to the sentencing judge to clarify to which specific sentence the reduction for time spent in custody applied. The overarching conclusion was that the importance of deterring such dangerous conduct outweighed the appellant's personal circumstances, affirming the sentencing judge's decision not to suspend the imprisonment term.

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

I disagree. In my view, general deterrence is of the utmost importance in a case of this type. Despite the fact that the offending was unplanned and spontaneous, it was nevertheless, deliberate and extremely dangerous. The pilot was blind for a number of seconds and the helicopter was flying at a relatively low attitude. Such behaviour could have had fatal consequences, and it was clearly the duty of the sentencing judge to consider the need to protect aircraft from such threats. In my view, the sentencing judge correctly concluded that a suspended sentence of imprisonment would not satisfy the requirement for general deterrence, which outweighed those matters personal to the appellant.Conclusion I would dismiss the appeal. However, I would remit the matter to the sentencing judge for the purposes of identifying the sentence, pursuant to s 9A of the Sentencing Act, to which the deduction for time spent in custody applies.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232

Most Recent Citation

R v Summers [2017] SADC 61

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Rankine v Commissioner of Police
[2025] SASC 163 Para 15

…is apparent that the jurisdiction to rectify errors conferred by s 20 (and its predecessor) may be exercised by an appellate court. [8] R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232 at [10]-[11] (David J, Duggan and Vanstone JJ agreeing). In R v Hussey [2013] SASCFC 41, the sentencing judge had declined to exercise the rectificat…
Carter v The King
[2025] SASCA 82 Para 4

…loss; ·the judge erred in his reliance upon the decision in R v Baldetti ;[1] ·the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. [1] R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232.…
Teasdale v Police
[2022] SASC 64 Para 13

…etion conferred by section 20 of the Sentencing Act and reduce the period of imprisonment by 11 days on account of time served.[15] [15] R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232 at [10]-[11] per David J (with whom Duggan and Vanstone JJ agreed); R v Hussey [2013] SASCFC 41 at [8] per Sulan J (with whom Peek and Nicholson JJ a…
R v Hunt
[2018] SASCFC 137 Para 31

…nt in custody referable to the subject offending. [10] [2017] SASCFC 141. [11] [2013] SASCFC 41 at [8]. [12] [2015] SASCFC 168 at [8]-[9]. [13] [2008] SASC 232 at [10]-[11]. [14] (2016) 125 SASR 171 at [24]-[25]. [15] [2017] SASCFC 141 at footnote 21.…
R v Summers
[2017] SASCFC 141 Para 16

…ence today’: Police v Summers .[17] [9] [2016] SASCFC 136, [6]. [10] [2013] SASCFC 41, [8]. [11] [2015] SASCFC 168, [8]-[9]. [12] [2008] SASC 232, [10]-[11]. [13] (2016) 125 SASR 171, [24]-[25]. [14] [2009] SASC 378, [33]-[34], [45]. [15] [2010] SASCFC 18, [5], [21]-[26]. [16] (1996) 67 SASR 90, 93-94. [17] MCMTG-…
R v Summers
[2017] SADC 61 Para 9

…257, [13]-[17]. [13] [2010] SASC 216, [13], [16]. [14] [2016] SASCFC 136, [6]. [15] [2013] SASCFC 41, [8]. [16] [2015] SASCFC 168, [8]-[9]. [17] [2008] SASC 232, [10]-[11]. [18] (2016) 125 SASR 171, [24]-[25]. [19] [2009] SASC 378, [33]-[34], [45]. [20] [2010] SASCFC 18, [5], [21]-[26]. [21] (1996) 67 SASR 90, 93-…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 5 of 5 shown

R v Perre
[2019] SASCFC 100 Para 18

…uing, he relied upon the authority of R v Lobban [4] in which this Court said:[5] [4] R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550. [5] Ibid 554‑555. In R v Perre (1986) 41 SASR 105, King CJ pointed out that on a plea of guilty a sentencing judge is required ordinarily to determine the facts of the offending upon the basis of the s…
R v Fraser
[2008] SASC 40 Para 10

…encing) Act 1988 (SA) (“the Sentencing Act”), then the reduction in the manner in which it was done would have been appropriate. [3] R v Fraser [2008] SASC 40 (Unreported, Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ, 14 February 2008) [32]‑[33].…
Dinsdale v The Queen
[2000] HCA 54 Para 4

…ppellant. He was also required to revisit those circumstances which were relevant to the imposition of the head sentence.[2] [2] Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 at [85]…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 18

…has not been joined between the prosecution and an offender. As the majority of the High Court pointed out in a joint judgment in R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, there is no general issue joined between the prosecution and an offender in sentencing proceedings (p 281). In my view, in the absence of specific joinder,…
SASR 560 and R v Lobban
[2001] SASC 392 Para 18

…why he had possession of the various items. In so arguing, he relied upon the authority of R v Lobban [4] in which this Court said:[5] [4] R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550. [5] Ibid 554‑555. In R v Perre (1986) 41 SASR 105, King CJ pointed out that on a plea of guilty a sentencing judge is required ordinarily to determi…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA)
38(1), 9A 3 mentions (from Para 3)
Aircraft Offences Act 1971 (SA)
10 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Firearms Act 1977 (SA)
11(1) 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA)
32(1) 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA)
15(1a)(b) 2 mentions (from Para 8)