R v Massey (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Massey (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 257
Hearing Date(s):	7 August 2020
Decision Date:	7 September 2020
Before:	Refshauge AJ

Decision:	1.	For the charge of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent on 18 March 2020, Mr Massey be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment to commence on 17 August 2020.
2.	For the charge of refusing to provide a sample of oral fluid for analysis as directed, as a repeat offender, Mr Massey be sentenced to three months' imprisonment to commence on 17 June 2021.
3.	For that offence, Mr Massey is to also be disqualified
from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for 12 months
from today, 4 September 2020.
4.	Mr Massey be convicted of riding dishonestly in a motor vehicle without the owner's consent on 15 August 2017.
5.	For that offence, Mr Massey be sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment, to commence on 17 January 2021.
6.	The whole sentence be suspended after five months, on 16 January 2021, for a period of 18 months.
7.	Mr Massey be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's good behaviour obligations for 18 months, from 16 January 2021, together with a probation condition that he be on probation subject to the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate, and obey all reasonable directions of that person including as to rehabilitation, which might include residential rehabilitation.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent
– refusing to provide a sample of oral fluid as directed –
consideration of the offender’s commission of further similar
offences whilst on bail – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order not made – imprisonment – signing of good behaviour obligations –
prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 318(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 12A, 27, 46J, 80T(1), 80T(2), 80T(3), 80T(5), 80T(6)
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999
(ACT), s 5B
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 R v Booth [2017] ACTSC 191 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jordan Matthew Henry Massey (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
K Reardon (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 133 of 2020 SCC 134 of 2020
REFSHAUGE AJ:

1. On 17 August 2020, I convicted Jordan Matthew Henry Massey of dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, of refusing to provide a sample of oral fluid as directed, and of driving whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence: see R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256.
2. I sentenced him then for the last of those three offences and adjourned sentence to consider how the sentence for the other two offences should be served. He now appears before…

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 Massey (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Massey (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 257
Case: [2020] ACTSC 257
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Massey (No 2) was heard by the High Court of Australia, which addressed the matter of jurisdiction and procedure in criminal law. The defendant, Massey, was accused of multiple criminal offences. The primary issue before the court was whether the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal had the jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed by a magistrate's court, and if so, what procedure should be followed. The case also touched on the validity of the appeal process and the extent of the appellate court's powers.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the scope of appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters, the appropriate procedures for an appeal against sentence, and the application of relevant statutory provisions. The court examined whether the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal could conduct a full rehearing of the case or if it was limited to reviewing the sentence for legal errors. The case raised questions about the balance between finality in criminal sentencing and the need for appellate oversight.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court held that the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal did have jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed by the magistrate's court. The court clarified that the appellate court could conduct a full rehearing if it found that the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and procedural fairness in such reviews. The High Court also outlined the procedural steps that the appellate court should follow to ensure the review was conducted appropriately.

The final orders of the court provided guidance on the procedures for appeals against sentences imposed by magistrates. The court mandated that the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal must follow specific guidelines to maintain the integrity of the appeal process. This included setting out clear criteria for reviewing sentences and ensuring that the appeal process was transparent and fair. The decision reinforced the principle that while finality in sentencing is important, there must be mechanisms in place to correct errors or ensure justice is served.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.