R v Riddle - [2010] ACTCA 8

THE QUEEN v MATTHEW WILLIAM RIDDLE
[2010] ACTCA 8 (25 May 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Crown appeal – whether a sentence of imprisonment for three months in full-time detention is manifestly inadequate – sentence manifestly inadequate – sentence should have included aspects of both personal and general deterrence – appropriate sentence nine months’ imprisonment to be served – inappropriate for Court of Appeal to resentence as the respondent has been released from custody

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 7, s 33

Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 34 - 2009
No. SC 372 of 2008

Judges: Gray P, Penfold and Lander JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 25 May 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2009
  )          No. SC 372 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:        THE QUEEN
  Appellant
AND:                  MATTHEW WILLIAM RIDDLE
  Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Gray P, Penfold and Lander JJ
Date:  25 May 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2009
  )          No. SC 372 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:        THE QUEEN
  Appellant
AND:                  MATTHEW WILLIAM RIDDLE
  Respondent

Judges:  Gray P, Penfold and Lander JJ
Date:  25 May 2010
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY P and LANDER J:

This is an appeal by the Crown against a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the respondent in respect to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The respondent pleaded guilty, on the first day fixed for the trial, to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

On 14 December 2009 the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three months in full-time detention. The respondent was also ordered to make a payment by way of reparation of $492.83 to the victim. He has served the term of imprisonment and was released on 12 March 2010.

The Crown complains of that part of the order which sentenced the respondent to three months’ imprisonment on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It seeks the following orders:

5. ...
(a)That the orders of His Honour be substituted by a sentence requiring the Respondent to serve a term of imprisonment, as full-time detention, which is greater than that imposed by his Honour; and
(b)Such further or other orders as considered appropriate by this Honourable Court.

(Footnotes omitted.)

In its submissions the Crown contended that, if this Court were of the opinion that…

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 Riddle

Details

AGLC: R v Riddle [2010] ACTCA 8
Case: [2010] ACTCA 8
Decision Date: 25 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against a sentence of three months’ imprisonment imposed on the respondent, R v Riddle, in the District Court. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, contending that it failed to adequately reflect the need for both personal and general deterrence.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court's sentence was so lenient as to be demonstrably wrong, requiring intervention on appeal. This involved assessing whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the principles of deterrence in light of the nature of the offence and the respondent's circumstances.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that while the respondent had served the sentence and been released, this did not preclude an appeal against its adequacy. However, the Court ultimately found that while the sentence might have been at the lower end of the appropriate range, it was not so manifestly inadequate as to warrant interference. The Court noted that the sentencing judge had considered relevant factors, and that the sentence, though perhaps lenient, did not fall outside the bounds of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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.