R v Curtis - [2005] NTSC 15

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] R v Curtis [2005] NTSC 15

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

BOB CURTIS

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY at Alice Springs

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction

FILE NO: JA 28/04 (20325187, 20415197, 20417628, 20417631)

DELIVERED: 24 March 2005

HEARING DATES: 7 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BF) AJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: R Noble
Respondent: D Bamber

Solicitors:
Appellant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number: Mar(BF) 0503
Number of pages: 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

R v Curtis [2005] NTSC 15
No. JA 28/04 (JA 28/04 (20325187, 20415197, 20417628, 20417631)

BETWEEN:

ROBERT ROLAND BURGOYNE
Appellant

AND:

BOB CURTIS
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BF) AJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 24 March 2005)

[1] The complainant in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction appeals against the sentence imposed on the respondent in that Court on 12 August 2004.
[2] The respondent pleaded guilty to one offence of assault female (his wife) on 3 January 2003 for which he was sentenced to two months imprisonment. That is not subject to appeal. At the same time he pleaded guilty to, and was dealt with, for four offences committed on 30 June 2004, six offences committed on 7 July 2004 and two further offences committed on 2 August 2004.
[3] Having sentenced the respondent for the various offences, some in aggregate, some concurrent and some cumulative, his Worship arrived at a total sentence of nine months imprisonment is reflected in the warrant for imprisonment. However, a calculation of sentences upon hearing of the appeal shows that the total (including the two months for the assault upon a female) was 11 months. Whatever the case it is plain that the sentence was ordered to be suspended after the respondent had served four months. An operational period of two years was fixed upon condition that he be under the supervision of the Director of Correctional Services, that upon release from prison he go to CAAPU and undertake a residential alcohol rehabilitation course and that he not absent himself from CAAPU without permission.
[4] By the time the appeal came on for hearing, the respondent had served the four months imprisonment and attended CAAPU for the period as directed.
[5] One of the offences of 7 July 2004 (file 20417631) was for unlawful assault upon a police officer in the execution of his duty under s 189A of the Criminal Code. That charge was brought on information and was a violent offence within the meaning of s 3(1) and Schedule 2 of the Code. The first and second grounds of appeal must succeed they being directed to error in sentencing in passing an aggregate sentence in relation to a matter brought upon information and other matters brought on complaint. That is not permissible (see Sentencing Act s 52(1) and…

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 Curtis

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis [2005] NTSC 015
Case: [2005] NTSC 15
Decision Date: 24 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Curtis was brought by the complainant in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Bob Curtis, by the Court. The respondent had been found guilty of multiple offences, including assault, driving while disqualified, and resisting police, among others. The appeal focused on the sentencing for the offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the aggregate sentences imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, particularly regarding the sentence for the assault on a police officer, which was part of a charge brought on information. The appeal argued that the Court had erred in imposing an aggregate sentence that included both information and complaint charges, and that the sentence for the assault on the police officer did not adequately reflect the need for specific and general deterrence.

The court found that the sentence for the assault on the police officer was indeed inadequate. It highlighted the importance of protecting police officers and the need for condign punishment for such offences. The court noted that while the assault was at the lower end of the scale of such offences, the respondent's prior convictions for similar offences and his dangerous driving while disqualified added to the gravity of the situation. The court concluded that the aggregate sentences were inappropriate given the disparity in the nature and penalties of the offences involved.

In light of the findings, the court resentenced the respondent. The new sentences totaled 15 months imprisonment, reduced from the original 20 months to account for the principle of totality and double jeopardy. The court confirmed the original order suspending the sentence after four months and set an operational period of three years, starting from the date of the respondent's release from prison.

Orders