Legal Research
Cases
R v Relph

R v Relph

Case [2002] ACTCA 6 7 November 2002

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v MARK ADRIAN RELPH [2002] ACTCA 6 (7 November 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of arson, one count of burglary and two counts of theft – whether sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and failed to give sufficient weight to overall seriousness of offences – significant subjective considerations – respondent attended police station of his own free will and made full admissions to police about his involvement in offences and assisted police in investigation – remorse shown and reparation made – respondent had no previous convictions – respondent suffering Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – very promising prospects of complete rehabilitation – evidence of continued good character – doctrine of double jeopardy – sentencing considerations where multiple offenders – sentence in respect of second arson manifestly inadequate with objective seriousness not reflected in sentence imposed

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 89, 93(1), 117(1), 408

R v Tait & Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473, followed
Cruse v Treminio [2001] ACTSC 59, affirmed
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606, followed

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 20 of 2002
No. SCC 21 of 2002

Judges: Crispin P, Spender and Cooper JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 7 November 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 20 of 2002
  )          No. SCC 21 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM THE SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE HIGGINS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND: MARK ADRIAN RELPH
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Spender and Cooper JJ
Date:  7 November 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be allowed.

The sentences imposed in respect of all but the second arson be confirmed.

The sentence imposed for the second arson be set aside and in lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment, to be suspended immediately upon the respondent entering into a recognizance in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) with the following conditions:

·To be of good behaviour for four (4) years.

·To accept the supervision on probation of the Director of ACT Corrective Services or his or her nominee and to obey all reasonable directions of that Director or nominee and in particular, to reside as directed, not to consume any drugs except those prescribed by a medical practitioner, to attend for urinanalysis as directed, to be assessed and if found suitable to participate in and complete any rehabilitation treatment and/or programs thought appropriate by corrective services in the “Thinking for a Change” Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Program, and to continue medication and counselling.

A warrant be issued for the arrest of Mark Adrian Relph, to lie in the Registry for seven (7) days and to be discharged upon the respondent entering into the recognizance referred to in Order 3, above.

IN THE SUPREME COURT…

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 Relph

Details

AGLC: R v Relph [2002] ACTCA 6
Case: [2002] ACTCA 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Relph* involved a Crown appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory against sentences imposed on the respondent, Mark Adrian Relph, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of arson, one count of burglary, and two counts of theft. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and failed to adequately reflect the overall seriousness of the offences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were manifestly inadequate, particularly in relation to the second arson offence, and whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the crimes committed, while also properly considering the significant subjective mitigating factors presented by the respondent. The court was required to balance the gravity of the offences with the respondent's personal circumstances and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. While confirming the sentences for all offences except the second arson, the court found that the sentence for the second arson, which involved setting fire to a motor vehicle parked near a dwelling, was manifestly inadequate. Applying principles of sentencing and considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the court set aside the original suspended sentence for the second arson. In its place, a head sentence of four years imprisonment was imposed, to be suspended immediately upon the respondent entering into a recognizance for four years, subject to strict conditions including probation, drug testing, and participation in rehabilitation programs. This decision acknowledged the respondent's compelling subjective factors, including his lack of prior convictions, remorse, ADHD diagnosis, and significant efforts towards rehabilitation and good character, while still ensuring the seriousness of the second arson offence was appropriately reflected.

Orders