R v Dingaman - [2025] SASCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
R v DINGAMAN
[2025] SASCA 64
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)
16 May 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEALS BY CROWN
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW - IN GENERAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR MATTER OF PROCEDURE - MATTERS OF PROCEDURE - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - ABORIGINAL OR TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER OFFENDER - GENERALLY
This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the Director’) for permission to appeal against a sentence.
A sentence of one year, two months and three days, with a non-parole period of seven months, was imposed on the respondent for the offences of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, aggravated assault causing harm, aggravated assault and two counts of breaching a bail agreement. The respondent had pleaded guilty to all the offences.
The offences were committed in the township of Mimili in the APY Lands, in the north-west of South Australia. At around 6.15 am on 27 January 2024, the respondent, together with his partner and her sister (‘co-offenders’) went to the home of a woman and her daughter (‘the victims’) in the Mimili township. The respondent and his co-offenders, armed with wooden sticks called ‘nulla nullas’ in the Pitjantjatjara language, broke their way into the victims’ home. The respondent grabbed the victims by the necks and attempted to drag them from a room. One of the victims defended herself by taking hold of a knife and stabbing the respondent, lacerating his left arm. One of the co-offenders struck the victims head, arm and elbow with a nulla nulla. The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated assault causing harm on the basis that he was a participant in a joint enterprise with his co-offender against the victims. The respondent also struck one of the victims across her right shoulder and arm with his nulla nulla and struck the other victim about three times on her arm.
The respondent is a 32-year-old Aboriginal man raised in the APY Lands township of Amata and remains closely connected to his traditional country and culture. The respondent has three children aged fifteen, eight and five years. He has been employed in the past, with work mustering camel in the Northern Territory and Western Australia available to him.
The Director appeals on the ground that the sentence imposed for the offences of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, aggravated assault…

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 Dingaman

Details

AGLC: R v Dingaman [2025] SASCA 64
Case: [2025] SASCA 64
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Dingaman, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated assault. The Crown contended that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a sentence that was demonstrably too lenient, thereby warranting appellate intervention. This required the Court to assess the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion against the established principles for appellate review of sentences, particularly where the Crown argues inadequacy.

The Court acknowledged the principle that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with a sentencing judge's discretion unless there is a clear error. However, it also affirmed that a sentence may be considered manifestly inadequate if it fails to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need for deterrence and punishment. The Court considered the specific circumstances of the aggravated assault, the offender's background, and the sentencing objectives, ultimately finding that the original sentence did not adequately reflect these factors.

The Full Court allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed a more severe sentence.

Orders