R v Martin No. Sccrm-00-104 Summary

R v MARTIN
[2000] SASC 252

Court of Criminal Appeal: Prior, Williams and Gray JJ

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The application was refused by a single judge. We have considered the matter in private in accordance with Criminal Appeal Rule 15.
The applicant was arraigned in the District Court in January on two counts of endangering life (s 29(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA). In April, a fresh Information was filed with respect to the same events referred to in the first Information. The charges were then charges of creating a risk of bodily harm: s 29(3) CLCA. The applicant pleaded guilty. The sentencing judge invoked s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (CLSA), allowed for the applicant’s pleas of guilty and imposed a single sentence of three years and three months with a non-parole period of two years and three months commencing from 27 September 1999.
The single judge refused leave to appeal on the grounds that the applicant’s offending “was a bad example and, given his antecedents, the sentence was within the range of the (sentencing judge’s) discretion”.
We agree with the single judge and refuse leave to appeal. We do not think it arguable that the exercise of the trial judge’s sentencing discretion miscarried, nor do we think that there is any real element of injustice in refusing leave given that there is little prospect of the appeal succeeding against the circumstances of these two offences, the totality of the applicant’s conduct on the occasion the subject of the charges and his antecedents.
We direct that the parties be advised that leave to appeal has been refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal involves an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The applicant, who was convicted of two counts of creating a risk of bodily harm under section 29(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA), is challenging the severity of the sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal comprises Prior, Williams, and Gray JJ, who have considered the application after it was initially refused by a single judge. The Court's consideration was conducted in private in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Rule 15.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the exercise of the trial judge's sentencing discretion was flawed and whether there was a real element of injustice in refusing the appeal. The applicant argued that the sentence was too severe, given the circumstances of the offences, the totality of his conduct, and his antecedents. The Court was tasked with determining whether these arguments were sufficiently strong to warrant leave to appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with the single judge that the sentence was within the range of the trial judge's discretion, and the applicant's offending was a bad example. The Court concluded that the exercise of the trial judge's sentencing discretion did not miscarry and that there was little prospect of the appeal succeeding. As a result, the Court refused leave to appeal, emphasising that there was no real element of injustice in this decision. The Court also directed that the parties be notified that leave to appeal had been refused.

R v Martin No. Sccrm-00-104

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established