R v Norton - [2019] ACTSC 111

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Norton
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 111
Hearing Date:	3 May 2019
DecisionDate:	3 May 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [16]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive motor vehicle without consent – plea of guilty
Legislation:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 318 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Zachery Norton (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Ms J Campbell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 195 of 2018; SCC 196 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 15 March 2019, the offender was arraigned on an indictment dated 11 September 2018. He entered a plea of guilty in relation to Count 2 in full satisfaction of the indictment.

Count 2 states that the offender dishonestly drove a motor vehicle belonging to someone else, and the vehicle was dishonestly taken without consent. The offence is contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $75,000, or both.

There is also a transfer charge from the Magistrates Court of driving unlicensed which is related to the above offence. This charge is contrary to s 31(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), and carries a maximum penalty of $3,000.

The result of the Crown’s acceptance of the plea of guilty to Count 2 in full satisfaction of the indictment (noting that Count 1 related to a robbery with an offensive weapon) is that the offender is to be sentenced only for driving a stolen vehicle.

The offender has been in custody in respect of the current offence for 89 days.

The offender has a significant criminal history including a number of driving offences. I accept that these are technical driving offences and not necessarily offences of dishonesty. This offence could be categorised as being of less than medium objective seriousness.

Sentencing requires consideration of the objects and principles of sentencing as set out in ss 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Section 33 is also relevant as is s 10. The latter section says a person should not be sent to prison except as a last resort.

It is an integral part of the sentencing process that deterrence plays a significant part in particular for offences involving motor vehicles where the public is consistently subjected to the stealing of vehicles and the upset and inconvenience that flows from this offence.

The offender was born in New South Wales but has lived most of his life in the ACT. He spent a number of his early years in foster care which created a difficult environment for him. He does not have much education, having left school in Year 9. The offender does have the benefit of supportive siblings and a…

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 Norton

Details

AGLC: R v Norton [2019] ACTSC 111
Case: [2019] ACTSC 111
Decision Date: 3 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Norton involved the respondent, Norton, who pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. The respondent's case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the court had jurisdiction to impose a sentence in the circumstances, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be, given the respondent's guilty plea and the specific circumstances of the offence.

The court began by confirming its jurisdiction to hear the matter and impose a sentence. It was established that the respondent had pleaded guilty to the offence and the facts were undisputed. The court then turned to the question of what constituted an appropriate sentence. It considered the respondent's guilty plea, the lack of any previous convictions, and the fact that the offence was a relatively minor one. The court emphasised the importance of sentencing in reflecting the community's values and deterring similar conduct in the future.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that a fine was the most appropriate form of punishment. It imposed a fine of $500, which was within the maximum penalty prescribed by statute for the offence. The court noted that a custodial sentence would not have been appropriate given the respondent's clean criminal record and the relatively minor nature of the offence. The court also made an order that the respondent pay costs of $250.

In summary, the court confirmed its jurisdiction to impose a sentence, considered the appropriate factors in determining the sentence, and imposed a fine of $500 along with an order for the respondent to pay costs. The court's decision reflects the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]

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.