Legal Research
Cases
R v Bennett

R v Bennett

Case [2005] SASC 55 15 February 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BENNETT
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice White)
15 February 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence - appellant pleaded guilty to five offences involving aggravated serious criminal trespass and theft - the Judge imposd a single sentence of four years with a non parole period of two years - whether sentence is manifestly excessive - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 18A, referred to.
R v Delphin (2001) 79 SASR 429, discussed.
R v Smith (2002) 224 LSJS 134; R v Major (1998) 20 SASR 488; R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395, considered.

R v BENNETT
[2005] SASC 55
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Vanstone and White JJ

DOYLE CJ: This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Leave to appeal was granted by a single Judge.
The appellant pleaded guilty to five offences. First, aggravated serious criminal trespass in a non-residential building, the offence being committed on 18 March 2004. That offence attracts a maximum punishment of 20 years imprisonment. Second, theft on the same occasion. That offence attracts a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The third and fourth offences were an offence of serious criminal trespass in a non-residential building and also theft committed on 29 June 2004. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 10 years imprisonment. Finally, an offence of theft committed on 2 September 2003, which also attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
The Judge imposed a single sentence of imprisonment of four years, exercising the power conferred by s18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. He said that on account of the plea of guilty he had reduced the sentence by “approximately 20 per cent”. He fixed a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months. In each case he said that he had taken into account 7 weeks of imprisonment that the appellant had already served.
The appellant complains that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The circumstances of the first two offences are that on the spur of the moment, while travelling through Oakbank, the appellant and his father decided to break into the premises of Paech Motors. While in there, they stole seven chainsaws. They were each apprehended shortly afterwards and the property was recovered. The offence seems to have been the result of the appellant and his father having consumed a good deal of beer on the day in question and considering that they needed some money.
The next two offences were committed by the appellant alone. He broke into an IGA Supermarket at Oaklands Park by breaking a window and stole about 800 packets of cigarettes and a small amount of cash. The value of the…

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 Bennett

Details

AGLC: R v Bennett [2005] SASC 55
Case: [2005] SASC 55
Decision Date: 15 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bennett, the appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial Judge following a guilty plea to five offences of aggravated serious criminal trespass and theft. The appellant's legal representative argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, warranting an appeal or a new trial.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of sentencing in relation to the appellant's convictions. The Court noted that the appellant had a history of offending, including similar previous convictions, and that the Judge had considered these factors in imposing the sentence. The Court further emphasised that the sentence was within the range of penalties available for the offences, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the Judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence, and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial Judge. The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of four years with a non-parole period of two years was affirmed. The Court's decision highlights the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, and the need for appellate courts to exercise caution when reviewing sentences imposed by trial Judges.

Orders