R v Jackson - [2007] SASC 332

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v JACKSON
[2007] SASC 332
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Sulan, The Honourable Justice White and The Honourable Justice David)
17 September 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES - KIDNAPPING
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping, contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 - sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of 18 months - sentence suspended upon appellant entering into a bond - whether sentence manifestly excessive - appeal allowed - sentence reduced to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of 12 months, suspended upon entering into a bond.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 39, referred to.
R v Lam & Parker [2006] SASC 278; Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293, considered.

R v JACKSON
[2007] SASC 332
Court of Criminal Appeal: Sulan, White and David JJ

SULAN J: Samantha Gaylle Jackson pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping, contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, between 13 October 2006 and 16 October 2006 at Port Augusta. She unlawfully detained BJP (“the complainant”), who was under the age of 18 years, with the intention of committing an indictable offence against her. The circumstances of aggravation were that she threatened to use a knife at the time of committing the offence. The maximum penalty for aggravated kidnapping is imprisonment for 25 years.
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, with a non‑parole period of 18 months. The sentence was suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond in the sum of $500, to be of good behaviour for three years and for two of those years to be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer and obey all lawful directions of that officer as to psychiatric counselling and to attend programs relating to drug and alcohol abuse. It was a further condition of the bond that the appellant not contact the complainant.
The appellant appeals against that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
Background
The appellant was raised in a dysfunctional home. Her father was an alcoholic. The appellant had a strained relationship with her mother. The relationship of her parents was both physically and verbally abusive. Her parents separated when she was 16 years of age. She suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her mother’s new partners. She had been abusing alcohol and marijuana since she was 14 years of age. She fell pregnant at the age of 16 years.
When she was 17 years of age, she became involved in prostitution and developed a relationship with a Mr Jackson. They were married and she has two children by him. She and Mr Jackson moved to Port…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [2007] SASC 332
Case: [2007] SASC 332
Decision Date: 17 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and appealed against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the South Australian Court of Appeal. The appellant, who had a troubled upbringing and a history of substance abuse, became involved in a relationship with Mr Jackson, who physically abused her. When she discovered that Mr Jackson was in prison and was being visited by young women, including the complainant, she became obsessed and angry. She texted the complainant demanding to know why she was involved with Mr Jackson. The complainant went to the appellant’s home to discuss the matter. The appellant, armed with knives, threatened the complainant, accusing her of trying to take her family and of being Mr Jackson's mistress and girlfriend. The appellant would not let the complainant leave and held her against her will.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence should be reduced, taking into account her troubled background and the circumstances of the offence. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances and whether it could be described as manifestly excessive. The court also had to determine whether the sentence could be reduced while still achieving the aims of denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and reduced it to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of 12 months, suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond. The court considered the appellant’s troubled background, her history of substance abuse, and the nature of the offence. The court noted that the appellant had a history of self-harm and had been in an abusive relationship. The court also considered the appellant’s remorse and the fact that she had pleaded guilty. The court held that the sentence should reflect the appellant’s background and the nature of the offence, and that the original sentence did not do so. The court reduced the sentence to reflect these considerations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of 12 months, suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant appeals against that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.Background The appellant was raised in a dysfunctional home. Her father was an alcoholic. The appellant had a strained relationship with her mother. The relationship of her parents was both physically and verbally abusive. Her parents separated when she was 16 years of age. She suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her mother’s new partners. She had been abusing alcohol and marijuana since she was 14 years of age. She fell pregnant at the age of 16 years. When she was 17 years of age, she became involved in prostitution and developed a relationship with a Mr Jackson. They were married and she has two children by him. She and Mr Jackson moved to Port Augusta. The relationship was unsatisfactory, as he physically abused her. During that time, she attempted self‑harm and was admitted to Glenside Hospital. Mr Jackson paid her little attention. The appellant believed that he was involved in relationships with other young women, including the complainant, who was 17 years of age at the time. Some time prior to this offence, Mr Jackson was imprisoned. The appellant discovered that young women, including the complainant, were visiting him in gaol. The appellant was using drugs. She became obsessed about the complainant visiting Mr Jackson. She was concerned to find out about his relationship with her. The complainant said that she and the appellant had been seeing each other regularly. She thought that they were friends. This changed when she received a text message from the appellant which said, “What the hell are you playing at bitch?” She telephoned the appellant because she was not aware why the appellant may have suddenly turned against her. The appellant was very angry, and told the complainant that she needed to come around so that the appellant could speak with her. The complainant visited Mr Jackson in gaol. He later telephoned her and said that the appellant was very upset. He told the complainant that she should go and see the appellant. The appellant had developed a friendship with a 14 year-old girl, M. M was at the appellant’s house when the appellant spoke to the complainant on the telephone. After the conversation, the appellant was very upset. M calmed the appellant down. M phoned the complainant and told her that the appellant had calmed down and wanted to talk to her. She suggested to the complainant that she should come over and talk to the appellant. Eventually, the complainant went to the appellant’s home at Taylor Court with a friend, C. When they arrived, M and another young person, D, were at the house. The appellant asked the complainant to come to the bedroom so that they could speak. During the conversation, the appellant accused the complainant of trying to take her family. She talked about suicide. She took a knife from her bag and flicked it towards the complainant. She accused the complainant of being her husband’s mistress and girlfriend, and accused her of trying to break up the family unit. She continually threatened the complainant, and said that she was going to scar her face. She would not permit the complainant to leave. She sat at the bedroom door. She had a knife in each of her hands. She threatened the complainant. She searched the complainant’s bag and took a number of items from it.

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.