R v Chatfield

Case [2012] ACTCA 32

THE QUEEN v ALFRED CHATFIELD
[2012] ACTCA 32 (29 June 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – Crown appeal against sentence – principles of Crown appeal – whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate – whether the sentencing judge failed to properly accumulate sentences – whether the Court should have regard to the “principle” of double jeopardy in re-sentencing – “principle” of double jeopardy inconsistent with statutory purpose of sentencing – primacy of general deterrence – appeal allowed 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 53, 60
Criminal Code Act 2002 (ACT), s 310
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 307
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 289, 290
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Peel v The Queen (1971) 125 CLR 447
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Dinsdale v The Queen  (2000) 202 CLR 321
The Queen v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2012) 284 ALR 445

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 34 - 2011
No. SCC 25 of 2010

Judges:         Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            29 June 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 25 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:ALFRED CHATFIELD

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  29 June 2012 
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be allowed.

  2. The sentences imposed in respect of counts 1 and 4 on the indictment be set aside.

  3. In respect of count 1 on the indictment, the period of imprisonment be increased from four years and six months to six years and three months.

  4. In respect of count 4 on the indictment, the period of imprisonment be increased from two years to two years and eight months and the period of accumulation be increased from six months to one year.

  5. The sentences imposed in respect of count 2 and 3 on the indictment be confirmed.

  6. The respondent be sentenced to a total of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.

  7. A non-parole period of six years be imposed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2011
  )          No. SCC 25 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:ALFRED CHATFIELD

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Refshauge and Lander JJ
Date:  29 June 2012 
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is a Crown appeal against sentence.

  1. The respondent pleaded guilty to the following four counts…

Continue reading R v Chatfield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Chatfield [2012] ACTCA 32
Case
[2012] ACTCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against sentences imposed by a sentencing judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Chatfield, had been convicted on multiple counts on an indictment. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to properly accumulate sentences and in considering the principle of double jeopardy.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the original sentences were demonstrably insufficient, whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentence accumulation, and whether the concept of double jeopardy had any relevance in the context of a Crown appeal against sentence. The Court was required to determine the appropriate sentencing approach, particularly in light of the statutory framework governing sentencing and appeals.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had erred in several respects. It held that the principle of double jeopardy, as it relates to the finality of a sentence, was inconsistent with the statutory purpose of sentencing and the Crown's right to appeal against inadequate sentences. The Court emphasised the primacy of general deterrence in sentencing for the offences in question. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the sentences for counts 1 and 4, increasing the terms of imprisonment and accumulation periods for those counts, confirming the sentences for counts 2 and 3, and imposing a new total sentence of seven years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be allowed.

2.

The sentences imposed in respect of counts 1 and 4 on the indictment be set aside.

3.

In respect of count 1 on the indictment, the period of imprisonment be increased from four years and six months to six years and three months.

4.

In respect of count 4 on the indictment, the period of imprisonment be increased from two years to two years and eight months and the period of accumulation be increased from six months to one year.

5.

The sentences imposed in respect of count 2 and 3 on the indictment be confirmed.

6.

The respondent be sentenced to a total of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.

7.

A non-parole period of six years be imposed.

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.